Shortages Imminent as Earth Enters New Cold Climate Era

The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), the leading independent research organization in the United States on the subject of the next climate change, issues today the following warning of imminent crop damage expected to produce food and ethanol shortages for the US and Canada: Over the next 30 months, global temperatures are expected to make another dramatic drop even greater than that seen during the 2007-2008 period. As the Earth’s current El Nino dissipates, the planet will return to the long term temperature decline brought on by the Sun’s historic reduction in output, the on-going “solar hibernation.”

Source Press Release SSRC 2-2010 from the Space and Science Research Centre

This is a very serious matter that has not hit any MSM outlet, and probably will not, and which is obviously not going to be promulgated by the PTB as it will impinge upon their precious Carbon Taxation Bonanza.

Most people I believe do realise that lately the general climate has been a little cooler. Few could sensibly deny that the recent winter has been colder than some in recent times, and was almost a return to the winters of several decades ago which I remember well being a bit past my sell by date.

Is it ironic that crop derived fuel will be hit? I believe it is, since one of the reasons given by the warmists for the move to crop derived fuels was that using these would aid the prevention of global warming. Maybe they have been successful sooner than they anticipated. - I think not.

Is this another nail in the coffin of the AGW theory? YES

Is this an excuse to start polluting? NO

As a "climate realist" I do not subscribe to the theory that "climate realists" are "deniers" because they want to be "polluters". This is a lame "warmist" attack on people who for the most part are sensible and just as concerned about the planet as the IPCC and their bunch of Carbon Tax gathering adherents.

This piece of information, if is is correct and as genuine as I believe it to be, represents serious news for everyone.

The comment in the article, again if correct, which was

The SSRC further adds that the severity of this projected near term decline may be on the order of 0.9 C to 1.1 C from present levels

represents pretty much a wipe-out of all the temperature increase that is claimed as being due to carbon dioxide caused by mankind's activities. (or humankind's if you prefer to be PC)

You thought this winter was bad - wait and see what is yet to come. A considerable time ago some scientists said we were headed for another ice age..............

We are going through the timeline of around 10,000-9000 BC.

I don't understand why people are saying we are going to get warmer?

Follow the timelines. I also read many channelings (most won't acknowledge them) and they have been telling us this for years!

you fools!! Global warming. Duh!

Al Gore.

Polar bears.

Green House Gases.

Sorry I ran out of buzz words to make myself appear intelligent.

I don't understand how people think its getting warmer either, last winter. Was the coldest winter I can ever remember, and it was 48 degrees yesterday in the middle of may when its usually in the 80,s, its called using brain cells

1 cooler season does not make global cooing any more than 10 warm years means global warming.

Let's get several hundred years of scientific data, using instruments, then we can make an intelligent guess.

The earth's climate changes are measured in millenniums, not seasons, years, decades, or even a human lifetimes.

Originally posted by hinky
Let's get several hundred years of scientific data, using instruments, then we can make an intelligent guess.

The earth's climate changes are measured in millenniums, not seasons, years, decades, or even a human lifetimes.

Tell that to Al Gore.

He never read that memo.

Originally posted by blujay
We are going through the timeline of around 10,000-9000 BC.

I don't understand why people are saying we are going to get warmer?

Follow the timelines. I also read many channelings (most won't acknowledge them) and they have been telling us this for years!

no we arent or alot more of the earth would be above sea level. The Bering Strait, Doggerland, those nifty underwater "pyramids" in Japan.

when I was little and it snowed in July it was a freak thing, nowadays its the end of the world. sheesh

Originally posted by hinky
1 cooler season does not make global cooing any more than 10 warm years means global warming.

This is true, but we are not looking at ONE cooler season. If you look at the graphs you will see that we are moving back into another Ice Age - a perfectly normal cycle by the way. As for 'one' cooler season take a look at this site which explains that the last decade has been the coldest since the late 60s.

Let's get several hundred years of scientific data, using instruments, then we can make an intelligent guess.

Let's not. Guessing is for the IPCC, not people who are serious about climate change - which ever way it goes.

The earth's climate changes are measured in millenniums, not seasons, years, decades, or even a human lifetimes.

This is true, but they can also be measured in years. It just depends what you are measuring.

Thanks for posting.

Hope Australia's Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, reads the Space and Science Research data

as recently as last night's tv-news, he and the inimitable Julia Gillard were pushing global-warming hysteria as strongly as they could

Guess their Israeli masters haven't read the Space & Science info either

Oh well, who could blame them ? So much money to be made for the few at the cost of the rest, from global-warming

Originally posted by network dude
you fools!! Global warming. Duh!

Al Gore.

Polar bears.

Green House Gases.

Sorry I ran out of buzz words to make myself appear intelligent.

Ahahaha. i lol'd

Bump bump bump!

reply to post by network dude


You could have thrown manbearpig in there too.


Everybody seems concerned with the global warming/cooling issue, but the part that struck me the most is the global food shortages. The food shortages here in America have been diabolically covered up by the MSM. Another year or two of bad growing seasons and things could get ugly real fast. Like riots in the streets ugly.

reply to post by PuterMan

The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), the leading independent research organization in the United States on the subject of the next climate change

Ummm...says who?

I can start a website and call myself the leading "independent" researcher on the subject of bikini inspection - does that mean next time I'm at the beach I won't get arrested or slapped upside the head by my girlfriend?

I'd never heard of this Space and Science Research Center, so I googled it - and of course all that came up was a few websites talking about what a complete crock the whole thing is.

I also find it really peculiar how this supposed independent climate expert has chosen a period of 30 months to forecast a global cooling trend based on some alleged solar "hibernation", even though current variation is heading towards a MAXIMUM in it's 11 year cycle.

He makes some vague connections to ENSO but that's really bizarre to me since at this point we can't even say for sure we're about to enter a La Nina cycle, let alone how long it'll last...

So I wouldn't be surprised if this is all actually a red herring and this guy's making these "scientific" predictions based on a trip to wikipedia:

Because it's well known that major volcanic eruptions contribute to global cooling and a lot of people feel we are due for one since Pinatubo was almost 20 years ago...

And hey - conveniently enough a certain temperamental Icelandic volcano has been all over the news lately!

Now, look up the phenomenon of volcanic winters on Wikipedia and see what they have to say about the last one:

Most recently, the 1991 explosion of Mount Pinatubo, another stratovolcano in the Philippines, cooled global temperatures for about 2–3 years.

2-3 years huh? That just happens to average out to 2.5 years, aka 30 months. Awesome coincidence.

Furthermore I like this statement from the "press release":

The SSRC further adds that the severity of this projected near term decline may be on the order of 0.9 C to 1.1 C from present levels.

Wow. Pretty scientific looking how they even got the specific range down to 0.9-1.1 C. Of course there's absolutely no mention of how they accomplished this amazing climate modeling accuracy - but who are we to question the research of the Space and Science Research Center!

Interestingly enough though there's a couple of mentions on that wikipedia page of how temperatures were previously affected by around 1C. Adding some +/- 0.1 uncertainty to that figure makes it look that much more science-y I guess.

Indeed I'd expect nothing less from the leading independent research organization in the United States on the subject of the next climate change.

reply to post by PuterMan


Right now in Wyoming it is 35F when it should be much hotter, we had snow falling again a couple of days ago, so I am guessing in Canada is even colder. Some people are going to claim that this is because of the volcano...but they forget that even Florida had freezing problems until recently and because of this there were many crop failures, including tomato yield failures before the volcano exploded. Not to mention that the ash is mostly around Europe and not in the U.S./Canada...


[edit on 14-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by hinky
.........
The earth's climate changes are measured in millenniums, not seasons, years, decades, or even a human lifetimes.

WRONG, it has been shown many times in this forum that Climate Changes can occur within a decade and even within a few years... It has happened in the past and will continue to happen...

People need to keep up with science if they want to make "an intelligent argument"....

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by PuterMan

 

The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), the leading independent research organization in the United States on the subject of the next climate change

Ummm...says who?

I can start a website and call myself the leading "independent" researcher on the subject of bikini inspection - does that mean next time I'm at the beach I won't get arrested or slapped upside the head by my girlfriend?

Such remarks just show you up and frankly add nothing to the discussion. Of course you can start a web site and call yourself an independent researcher, but somehow I doubt that you would be able to provide credentials that would support that, whereas the director of the Space and Science Research Center site does to some degree.

I'd never heard of this Space and Science Research Center, so I googled it - and of course all that came up was a few websites talking about what a complete crock the whole thing is.

If you had actually bothered to read the links that you so kindly provided you would find comments such as this:

Jason G. Williscroft said...

Tom, I'm afraid you're way off base on this one.

We've had an interesting exchange with John Casey. Turns out he is neither a nut nor a scammer... in fact, he's been involved at high levels in Big Science for a long time. SSRC a brand-new organization, which is scrambling to establish itself and make a contribution, but it is nonetheless legit.

We at The Dead Hand have pledged what support we have to offer to Casey and his efforts. I think anybody with an interest in injecting a little science into the global-warming charade ought to do likewise. Remember that many researchers speak out at the risk of their careers. That's why having an insider like Casey make a crusade of this is so important.
1:03 AM, January 14, 2008

Link to source

It would seem that at least one of your links thinks that the writer of the blog slamming Casey is wrong and that the Space and Science Research Center is genuine if a bit activist.

You would do well to read what you post before doing so, and by the way the fact the you have not heard of the Space and Science Research Center does not in any way mean that it is not genuine.

I also find it really peculiar how this supposed independent climate expert has chosen a period of 30 months to forecast a global cooling trend based on some alleged solar "hibernation", even though current variation is heading towards a MAXIMUM in it's 11 year cycle.

It would seem that you also do not keep an eye on the sun. Yes it supposed to be doing that - but it is not. There have been long periods (relatively) without sun spot activity and the cycle seems to be taking a long time to get going.

He makes some vague connections to ENSO but that's really bizarre to me since at this point we can't even say for sure we're about to enter a La Nina cycle, let alone how long it'll last...

This will be based on the predictions of an organisation known to doctor data and to ignore data sets that do not fit their warmist agenda would it?

So I wouldn't be surprised if this is all actually a red herring and this guy's making these "scientific" predictions based on a trip to wikipedia:

Perhaps something along the lines of your rebuttal?

Because it's well known that major volcanic eruptions contribute to global cooling and a lot of people feel we are due for one since Pinatubo was almost 20 years ago...

And hey - conveniently enough a certain temperamental Icelandic volcano has been all over the news lately!

Again, if you bothered to research the site you will find that John Casey was saying this in 2009 BEFORE the Icelandic volcano.

Now, look up the phenomenon of volcanic winters on Wikipedia and see what they have to say about the last one:

Most recently, the 1991 explosion of Mount Pinatubo, another stratovolcano in the Philippines, cooled global temperatures for about 2–3 years.

2-3 years huh? That just happens to average out to 2.5 years, aka 30 months. Awesome coincidence.

This remark has no relevance in the light of your failure to research the site properly and the statement was made before the eruption.

Furthermore I like this statement from the "press release":

The SSRC further adds that the severity of this projected near term decline may be on the order of 0.9 C to 1.1 C from present levels.

Wow. Pretty scientific looking how they even got the specific range down to 0.9-1.1 C. Of course there's absolutely no mention of how they accomplished this amazing climate modeling accuracy - but who are we to question the research of the Space and Science Research Center!

I will concede that there are insufficient sources quoted on the site as to how they arrive at the temperature figures, however your final comment in this paragraph is quite correct as you possibly, and please do correct me here if am wrong, do not have the qualifications to refute their findings.

Interestingly enough though there's a couple of mentions on that wikipedia page of how temperatures were previously affected by around 1C. Adding some +/- 0.1 uncertainty to that figure makes it look that much more science-y I guess.

Indeed I'd expect nothing less from the leading independent research organization in the United States on the subject of the next climate change.

I would remind you that Wikipedia is NOT the fount of all knowledge, is frequently wrong, and often biased. If you are basing your rebuttal solely upon Wikipedia and NOAA then I think you need to do further research. Anyone can edit Wikipedia - I have in the past - and you do not have to have a degree to do so. There is in my humble opinion a strong tendency on Wikipedia to fall in with popular current thinking and thus at this time it tends toward supporting AGW. It will start to fail, and its outlook will change as the debate continues.

For my part I prefer to make all possible scenarios available to me and to be prepared for any eventuality, therefore I will look at anything that has some basis in reason, and not necessarily on popular science.

[edit on 14/5/2010 by PuterMan]

Wonder what this news will do to Obama's cap and trade bill? oh sorry I meant "power" bill as it is now being called...
it went from "cap and trade bill"
that didn't work, then they changed it to "global warming bill" had a litle snag with the fake scientist data leak so they changed it to "climate change bill" that sputtered so now they are trying on a new label and calling it "power bill"

Maybe they will go back to "global cooling"? at least the science would match this time

reply to post by Just Wondering


Ha!! I think it should just be call the "Existence Tax".

It exists, and we probably soon won't as we are taxed out of existence! :;

I know that it has been colder in the Northern Hemisphere this past winter in a lot of places - and is still carrying on in some parts. Anyone from the Southern Hemisphere have any input? (If the blood has not rushed to your heads )

So what makes people thing The Space and Science Research Center is any more credible than Al Gore?

When it comes to global warming catastrophists they're down there with Robert Felix of iceagenow.com 'fame'.

Sorry guys, despite the name, this not a serious scientific organisation just a bunch of doom and gloom mongers selling fright stories to the gullible.

Its not just the solar "hibernation"

Or just the volcano.

Or just CO2.

Any number of things can and do influence the temperature.

What we do not have is the level of research or the length of records to explain or predict what will happen next year or 10 years or 100 years.

I have studied paleoclimatic change and all the AGW people only use climatic change going back a couple 1000 years.
and then they pick and ignore what they want to to "PROVE there theories.

None of the AGW people that i have talked to can explain why the great basin deserts of the US were filled with large lakes and not deserts as little as 5000 years ago.
And that the Owens river flowed to Death Valley Calif (Lake Manly) between 2000 to 5000 years ago.
www.desertusa.com...

Now the Owens river only makes it as far as Owens lake about 100 river miles away.


what is now the desert southwest was temperate open woodlands.
www4.hmc.edu:8001...

Originally posted by ANNED

None of the AGW people that i have talked to can explain why the great basin deserts of the US were filled with large lakes and not deserts as little as 5000 years ago.
And that the Owens river flowed to Death Valley Calif (Lake Manly) between 2000 to 5000 years ago.
www.desertusa.com...

It's probaby due to the shift in the ITCZ which in turn is beieved to be linked to changes in N Hemisphere insolation - and elsewhere led to the desertification of the Sahara and Arabia.

Not actually seen any research on changes on N America though - most of it has concentrated on the end of the African Humid Period. However there is some evidence of changes from S America - including the sudden advance in Andean glaciers.

None of which has anything to do with sudden, catastrophic global cooling occuring within the next few decades! Although, due to continuing changes in N Hemisphere insolation, we would expect a gradual cooling and advance of ice caps in the Arctic - contrary to observations which show the opposite has been happening.