Vanishing Sunspot Mystery Has Scientists Worried! The Beginning Of The Ice Age?

Great thread again Mike!! I am a firm believer that history repeats itself.

This has all happened before and is bound to happen again. I believe we are in what a lot of scientists call an "interglacial" period (between ice ages) whats happening with the sun and our own climate are natural cycles that will probably continue until the end of time as we know it. People will also say that it is all to due with global warming but in my opinion the whole "global warming" thing is only true to the point that we as humanity are just speeding the natural cycle along.

Even if we were headed for another ice age, I believe that with the tech of today, the human race is far better to deal and adapt to the cold than say if we were heading towards the sun and getting hotter and hotter every year.

This year is so much warmer than last year. I'm dissapointed..No snow, very little rain.

My first hand experience I trust the most of anything, and it says don't worry.

I actually mentioned this a couple months ago on another thread. Yes when you look at the Global Warming you would notice ALL the planets were having a warming so it was beyond a global warming it was a solar system warming The fact is the sun I feel controls these things just like the other mystical powers that the sun has. I think the sun is the closest thing to god that we can see. It creats and maintains like on this planet. I do feel we are in for some colder weather there is no doubt in my mind. Hopefully it will put this global warming bid to rest although I will say it doesnt hurt to take care of the planet.

reply to post by Blaine91555

This is a very serious issue. A mini ice age means the world can not grow as much food. We had a 35 day supply of food the last time I checked and our fearless leaders have a law against stocking more than 3 months supply or it can be confiscated. Meanwhile Al Gore's buddies in the EPA have this in mind.

"This is no laughing matter," Krause said. "The cow tax and the pig tax are parts of a larger scheme by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act."

"Under the proposal, if a state charged the "presumptive minimum rate" from the EPA, the cow tax would be $175 per dairy cow, $87.50 per head for beef cattle and a little more than $20 per pig,"... the U.S. Department of Agriculture says that a producer with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs would emit more than 100 tons of carbon and be subject to the permitting requirements. "These thresholds would impact 99 percent of dairy producers, over 90 percent of beef producers and 95 percent of hog producers in the United States," ..The EPA has issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.... "One of those provisions requires permits from anyone who emits more than 100 tons of a regulated pollutant per year and there are millions of sources that emit more than 100 tons of carbon." The Title V permits, are essentially a cow and pig tax... "The economic costs to producers from the cow and pig tax would be great and would impose severe penalties on livestock producers in the United States without effectively reducing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere." The comment deadline for the cow and pig tax is Nov. 28. Visit www.wyfb.org to find the link for information.

Farmers are already extremely fed-up with the USDA and NAIS. Since the three US meat-packers set the price, expect most of the couple million livestock farmers to retire (average age is 55) followed by a collapse of the feed grain farmers. Digging big pits and slaughtering newborns calves was done in the eighties so we can expect the same again.


The mass exit of farmers from agriculture followed by a temp drop is going to be real interesting. Also once the animals are dead so is the industry. We need to look at the lesson learned from the same laws imposed on the UK a decade ago BEFORE we wipe out US agriculture (we grow over 25% of the world food supply).

“ It is no longer a secret that the present UK government would like to be shot of farming altogether. On the January 3rd Today programme we heard that meetings convened by Defra had discussed whether UK farming was needed at all. Defra has dropped the word 'farming' from its title and, as global recession is at last being openly talked about, the UK government still talks glibly of being in a "post agricultural era"....”

...” big investors are "hurriedly moving their wealth out of stocks and shares and into farmland...." The Times article suggests that, "Across the world, hedge fund managers, property developers and other investors" are all ready to buy up British farmland.”

“Barton Briggs, one of Wall Street's most legendary investment strategists, is advising the rich and powerful to buy up farms and stock them with "seed, fertiliser, canned food. wine, medicine. clothes etc."
warmwell.blogspot.com...

As a farmer I am going to sit on my land with my veggie garden, a few cows, sheep, goats and chickens and my high fences, video cameras, alarms and shot guns and watch the rest of you @@holes starve! I and the rest of the farmers have tried to warn US citizens about the disaster Washington DC is brewing. I and other farmers have handed out lit and cards for three years and been told we are crazy so "STARVE BABY STARVE"

reply to post by spitefulgod
The sun has recently made a polar shift, which is due to come for earth to , estimated in 2012.

I can't believe I just sat and watched that entire TZ episode. I must really have no life. I thought it was really good though ;p

reply to post by mikesingh


i just think its the calming before the strom

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
but wouldnt reduced sunspots indicate a higher temp for the sun?

What Sunspots do is they churn up the Sun, causing explosions/flares (CMEs) that send bits of Sun (radiation) effectively spewing in all directions. This is why Earth warms when there are more Sunspots.


Ice age or not, IMO it's pointless worring about it. We are at the mercy of our Sun, and nature, and we should divert our energy to getting off Earth before anything bad happens, if we can.

As it is now, no one can agree on anything, and we are wasting time and resources bickering. As I see it, this is a race against time, and I agree with Mr. Hawking that we need a 'Plan B' if we can't get it together in time.

i thought Clif High had some interesting things to say about the possible coming of an ice age...

...

So our understanding of chemtrails comes from the archetype that The Powers That Be are intensely scared and scared at all these different levels. One of the things they’re scared about is not going into an ice age. If we don’t go into an ice age, as in Lovelock’s book, Gaia is doomed to go the way of, supposedly, Venus. We get extra-hot and everybody’ll die off.

And so, usually at this particular point in our orbital permutations we get to the 100,000-year cycle and we go into a mini ice age, which cools everything down, refreshes the oceans, etc., etc., That is not occurring at this point because we’re lining up with the dark rift on the side of the galactic central, and we’re getting extra radiation coming on in, which is heating everything up. Everything from the GRBs, the solar radiation, the heliosphere radiation pouring on in, etc., is raising the temperature on all the planets, in spite of the fact that, at this point in our cycle of 100,000 years, we should be cooling down, to the betterment of the planet.

So The Powers That Be got really scared and at least at one bespoke level of their internal fear they wanted to react and change the albedo by putting up a radiation shield that would cool the planet down as though we had glaciers all over the place, as though we had gone into the ice age. They hoped to trigger it that way.

...

projectcamelot.org...

...sounds rather specific, but it doesn't hurt to hear all sides of the story!!

EDIT: also, here's some more info from Project Camelot's site:

...weather patterns will continue to become more unstable as global warming also accelerates - caused by solar activity, NOT carbon emissions. A warmer climate means warmer oceans - also heated up by increased undersea volcanic activity.

Warmer oceans mean more hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones (all the same thing) - and also more rainfall. Some climatologists argue that increased rainfall means increased snowfall in northern latitudes and therefore the paradoxical possibility of a local ice age in certain locations, such as the northern parts of Europe, Russia and Canada.

Again, none of this is a civilization showstopper; but the same principles apply, inasmuch as there is likely to be mass migration of people forced to or wishing to relocate, and effects on food production and infrastructure. And this will definitely occur, as weather becomes more unstable and extreme worldwide.

projectcamelot.org...

makes sense - more rainfall makes for a cooler climate. i heard somewhere that constant rainfall alone would eventually produce its own ice age in about a year...

[edit on 25-11-2008 by adrenochrome]

reply to post by adrenochrome

sounds rather specific, but it doesn't hurt to hear all sides of the story!

Some sides make sense.

It called for a one liner.

[edit on 25-11-2008 by Phage]

Although it is true that there were studies on both sides of the issue of Global Change, during the seventies, the "balance" wasn't upset until the GW advocates of late, went back and "performed studies" that said that all the noise regarding the "Coming Ice Age" came from media, and not scientists. This is nothing more than proponents of GW being very selective in what they considered SERIOUS studies.
Regardless, science is not a democratic process. In fact, very little knowledge is gained when everyone publishes papers confirming what is already known. True advances in science frequently come from those that publish works that challenge the current thinking. That, of course, should be self-evident.
Even "peer reviewed" papers are subject to extreme partiality. Peer reviews work fairly well, when the subject is fairly narrow, the variables are all known, AND ACCURATELY AND CONSISTENTLY MEASURABLE, and multiple disciplines are not involved. On the other hand, when those conditions are not met, then the peer review process frequently fails in its attempt to verify or refute the reviewed thesis.
Global Change falls into the latter category, unfortunately. With Global Climate Change, there are so many variables, in so many different disciplines, and many of those variables are estimated or inferred from other variables, where correlations may be apparent, but cause and effect have not been determined.
Of course, the theses of Global Warming and Global Cooling, naturally rely on temperature data. Over the last century, although temperature data may have been directly measured, but changes in instrumentation and methodology have been common.That is the GOOD news.

The BAD news is that as we go back in time, temperature data has to be inferred from other indicators, such as CO2 levels, plant and fossil evidence, sea levels, solar activity, etc. Many of the GW advocates point to CO2 levels of the past and claim that those levels correlate with temperature directly. Unfortunately, it is not clear which variable is the leader and which is the follower. In addition, there are so many other variables, as many have pointed out, that to point to one variable as the cause of GW or GC would be foolhardy.
In addition, when an issue, such as Global Change is politically charged, it is hard to get an impartial group of referees. The only thing a referee can do, in such cases, is either verify or dispute facts, as they know them or BELIEVE them to be. Since "PROVING" that Global Warming or Global Cooling is occurring is virtually impossible, given changes that normally take place over millennia, the peer review catches nothing but obvious facts.
I won't even get into the selection of the referees by the editor, and all that entails. That is the subject of another thread.
I'm afraid that as long as we look at one variable as the causal agent, any attempt to get closer to the truth of Global Change is doomed to failure.
I believe that IF this issue is resolved, it will be resolved as a DISPROOF BY EXAMPLE. Again, though, that may take a few hundred years, and I don't think many of us will be around to see that.
One thing that seems fairly certain is that global change has been occurring for over 4 billion years, from a boiling planet to a frozen one. Since man's footprint has only been present for about 1/20th of one percent of that time, and since measured temperatures, solar observations, ice packs, etc. have only been conducted directly for about 200 years, which is 1/40000000 of the earth's lifetime, any theory as to Global Climate Change would be, as we say, in science, a pure SWAG.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Food for thought regarding the evidence of "Carbon" impact on the planet.

I like the term global weirding, whether we get global cooling or global warming I will be right either way.

The Earth is a fragile place.........................

Four different data sets (NASA GISS, RSS MSU, UAH AMSU, and HADLEY) show global cooling. This includes NASA’s 30 years of 300,000 daily, satellite global temperature readings.

Several analytical studies of large amounts of data illuminate a threat of global cooling. Since 1998 global temperatures have cooled to 1970’s levels. The 25-30 year cool phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Atlantic Decadal Oscillation have started. We are 11,000 years into an interglacial period that averages 10,000 years. These concurrent cooling trends could signal the beginning of a long overdue Maunder Minimum, an event that occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Current declining global temperatures correspond to the declining solar activity phase of the 11 year solar cycle. Isotopes created by cosmic rays and other evidence provide correlations between climate and solar/cosmic ray flux over a period of hundreds of millions of years. By 2020 the sun will be starting its weakest cycle of the past two centuries.

So what are the proper responses to global cooling?

I think it is a conspiracy from the clothing manufactures. Times are tuff and summer and winter clothing needs to be rethought so global warming ware and mini ice age attire are two new catagories they might be thinking of adding to there lines.

No, I am not nuts (hmmmm) just bringing some humor to this after all there is nothing we can do now can we.

Mike good post as always maybe those aliens don't know which light bulbs to use, halogen or energy efficent.

I do suggest to offset the CO2 we had better plant trees in mass.

Honestly I start to ask myself if global warming and/or the evidence supporting it is nothing more than a cycle as the seasons are. Nature is a living entity and so is the earth. Imo this global warming or icing is something that we have not previously recorded on a grand scale with direct evidence in wiping out human life. And the records we do have aren't so well documented. Our best option if it is this case is to record it and hopefully leave a record for the future generation so they can be prepared and ready for the next time it happens.
Think of 2012 and the maya, is it a age of enlightenment or destruction? As stated earlier I think there is not much we can do except hope for the best, prepare for the worst and help eachother out the best we can. Either way time will tell as it always does and where theres a will, theres a way. I for one plan on living regardless of the situation and if life is wiped out well, until the next round.....


[edit on 25-11-2008 by N3krostatic]

that sucks I was just getting ready to do some sun tanning
but i guess that will have to wait

reply to post by antar

Please, you are taking one big thing for granted...that most intelligent people believe in the theory of evolution as it is proposed. And, a billion years, that is laughable. Evolution has already been completely debunked. There are changes but there is no evolving from one species to another, sorry, just didn't happen.

Originally posted by GodForbid

Originally posted by BlackCat13
after just watching the movie I really wonder, "if this global warming tendancy" is really happening, and the climate issues are neglected, what will happen if this mini ice age is over?

That is exactly what sprung into my mind as soon as I read the OP.

What happens if both theorys are correct? What happens if we are thickening our atmosphere with CO2, creating a green house effect, but the solar minimum triggers a mini ice age, so we continue to neglect the atmosphere issues, then when the ice age is over, we would be in for some serious heating.

So from frozen, to boiling very quickly. :O

You are referring to the movie "The Day After Tomorrow", correct me if I am wrong. That movie was loosely based on a book by Art Bell and Whitley Strieber called "The Coming Global Superstorm". I would recommend the book over the movie any day. I found its theories to be well written, researched and presented. As we are all aware, the earth has been through several ice ages in its past. What preceded the Ice Ages? I would venture.... Global Warming! It is a normal cycle in our planets history. We are seeing polar melt like never before. Blue water at the north pole and polar bears looking for a home. Global warming concerns me only because I think the snap back to an Ice Age will be the result. And if you think about it, it makes sense. The earth started hot and has been cooling ever since. Entropy ensures this. And I think Man will have little impact on this process, either way. Mother nature rules. We may help her along and hasten our demise, but this has been on the way for some time now.

IMHO.

Edit - Whitley not Whitney

[edit on 25-11-2008 by DisgustedOne]