The Cover-up of the coming Mini Ice Age - Global Warming fails

Dear ATS friends,

I've been following the Global Warming "thing" for some time now. It is, as many of you have probably noticed, quite ridiculous and now, after more than 10 years after it really started, has its own data going against it. I just found this article/pdf document on the internet that summarizes relatively well some facts about the world climate, the Global Warming scam and the actual coming Mini Ice Age/Ice age.

Here is some quote first:

REALITY CHECK - EXTREME WEATHER IS THE ISSUE!
“Before looking at the proven failure of the Man-made CO2 Climate Change proposition we need a reality check on why the
world is arguing about whether or not small changes in a trace gas (CO2) are making even MEASURABLE changes in world
temperature. The ONLY reason is that it was claimed that these changes if they exist might lead to DANGEROUS weather
events. Extreme weather is the problem to be tackled and we at WeatherAction predict extreme weather events weeks
and months ahead - with proven peer-reviewed skill - using SOLAR ACTIVITY – nothing to do with CO2. Yet the UN IPCC,
Governments, Met Office and warmist media BBC, New York Times etc consistently refuse to acknowledge or report our
warnings. They prefer the public to suffer and even die than admit their deluded CO2 theory has failed every objective
scientific test and can predict nothing. They have a political agenda which is the enemy of evidence-based science
“No flock of warmist sheep,
however deluded, selfimportant, or supposedly
large, can in the end
overcome a single tiger of
evidence-based science.”
"This UN IPCC 5th report and the build-up to it is a carefully choreographed self-referencing political
PR game which contains nothing of substance and regurgitates old ‘cherry picked’ discredited data
and is constructed to conceal the core scientific fact:
“All scientific tests and examination show there is NO ACTUAL OBSERVED
EVIDENCE for man-made CO2 Climate Change in the real atmosphere and sea in the
real world and ONLY EVIDENCE AGAINST. The warmist CO2 ‘theory’ is disproved.
Source of pic thanks to Lou Mackenzie
This is www.weatheraction.com...

Here is the link: LINK

While I do realize that these guys that wrote the PDF report are more or less advertising their work and website they are just the tip of the Iceberg and what they present in the PDF (very interesting one, really) is researcheable and provable to a great extent.

As some of you may know, our planet has been going through long periods of "Ice Ages" and the so-called "Interglacial Periods" many times during the last few million years like clockwork:

1. 90,000 yrs of Ice Age
2. 10,000 yrs of Interglacial Warm Period

Currently, we have already gone through a little bit more than 10,000 yrs of very nice and warm world Climate. We are due for an Ice Age - big or small.

Now, there are 2 basic types of Ice Ages - Big ones and Mini Ice Ages. For example, a Mini Ice age occured in Europe at the end of its Medieval period. It was at least 200 years long, with average world temperatures dropping by a few degrees. I believed some of you have heard that the River Thames in London used to totally freeze and markets were created on top of the Ice.
Mini Ice Age Link

Check this documentary from the 80s, I think.


It basically explains one of the best theories available as to why Ice Ages occur and why if we actually produce more CO2, we are going to accellerate the inevitable coming of the Ice Age. This is well before the Global Warming hype started.

Evidence has mounted that global warming began in the last century and that humans are, at least in part, responsible. The concern is that the warming of our climate will greatly affect its habitability for many species, including humans. Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences concur that this is the case. But some argue that this thinking is too limited. They say that too many scientists are either ignoring, or don’t understand, the well-established fact that Earth’s climate has changed rapidly in the past and could change rapidly in the future—in either direction.

Evidence for abrupt climate change is readily found in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica. One of the best known examples of such an event is the Younger Dryas cooling of about 12,000 years ago, named after the arctic wildflower found in northern European sediments. This event began and ended rather abruptly, and for its entire 1000 year duration the North Atlantic region was about 5°C colder. Could something like this happen again? It sure could, and because the changes can happen all within one decade—we might not even see it coming......

External article link: LINK

Now, they say that in the 20th Century, the plante has increased in temperature by about 0.7 degrees C. True. However, we have had much more substantial periods of Warming in the past 10,000 years and they had nothing to do with CO2 emissions. The Russians were of the opinion that the Earth is actually cooling in general in the 70's:

Study of the orbital mechanics of the solar system in the 1970s led Russians to believe the Earth was about to cool and we should prepare quickly because it will be catastrophic. Their arguments were lost in the rush to warming group-think in the 1990s, but the arguments for impending cold are well founded and still believed by many good scientists. As the sun goes even quieter and January, 2008 saw the greatest year to year temperature drop ever (128 years of NASA GISS data) and thru the end of 2008 remains relatively cool, it is clear cooling needs to be considered as a very plausible future. This is highlighted by 2 papers published in March 2008. Scafetta and West showed that up to 69% of observed warming is from the sun and remind us that the sun is projected to cool and Ramanathan and Carmichael show that soot has 60% of the warming power of CO2. Both papers state that these factors are underappreciated by IPCC. The soot may well explain the Arctic melting, as it has recently for Asian glaciers. Many scientists believe the temperature changes are more dependent on the sun than CO2, similar to the relationship in your home with your furnace. With the Sun's face nearly quiet, the monthly patterns over the last 12 months are most similar to those of 1797 preceding the Dalton Minimum of 1798-1823 during the little ice age (Timo Niroma).

Link to article: LINK

Also, I read somewhere, and I can't find the source, that actually, in the 90s, ocean levels were expected to rise till 2012 by a few meters or so. However, levels have been dropping in general. Moreover, Antarctica's Ice has been increasing substantially. The North Ice Cap has also been increasing in the past 10 years and not decreasing.

More to follow if there is interest.

What do you think guys?

I think you may be on to something and down this path lay a real and viable reason to lie at the levels they have been. Global warming? We'd survive as a species with most members still alive to talk about it. Just move inland. Higher ground. Simulations of a 60 METER sea rise don't show mass death across the world, unless it happened in less than a day, all at once.

A mini-Ice age? What would society do if they knew it was coming, knew it could not be stopped..only mitigated and it was within our lifetimes?

That would, for many, lead to such total disrespect for any measure of authority in a "Why does it matter??" way (heard that before, huh?) that we may as well just throw in the towel and die now, even if it were decades away. The police state to control the anarchy of desperate hopelessness wouldn't be a world I'd much want to raise my son in.

It would be .....plenty of reason to hide every hint of it, IMO. Who knows.....?

reply to post by Slevinq


Thanks I needed a laugh. That secound link was hilarious it reminded me of the adds that they used to have in the back of comics selling X-ray specs and decoder rings. I guess some will always fall for things like that.

Oh, another interesting one:

Dr. Tim Ball, Historical Climatologist

Frontier Centre: We are all familiar with the modern theory that the world’s climate is getting warmer. Is it?

Tim Ball: Yes, it warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it’s been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling.

FC: Could you summarize the evidence that suggests the world is cooling slightly, not warming up?

TB: Yes, since 1940 and from 1940 until 1980, even the surface record shows cooling. The argument is that there has been warming since then but, in fact, almost all of that is due to what is called the “urban heat island” effect – that is, that the weather stations are around the edge of cities and the cities expanded out and distorted the record. When you look at rural stations – if you look at the Antarctic, for example – the South Pole shows cooling since 1957 and the satellite data which has been up since 1978 shows a slight cooling trend as well.

FC: If the world were warming up, would that be good or bad for Canada?

TB: It would be good, because even Environment Canada acknowledges that you would have better agricultural conditions, a longer frost-free season. Some people express concern about it being drier, particularly on the Prairies but the evidence says that droughts are not related to temperature. They are related to sun-spot cycles – solar cycles. So, over all it would be better for Canada and it would also reduce, by the way, the amount of fossil fuels you burn because you wouldn’t have to heat homes to the extent that we do.

Just to make things more interesting

Link to article: LINK

Wrabbit2000
I think you may be on to something and down this path lay a real and viable reason to lie at the levels they have been. Global warming? We'd survive as a species with most members still alive to talk about it. Just move inland. Higher ground. Simulations of a 60 METER sea rise don't show mass death across the world, unless it happened in less than a day, all at once.

A mini-Ice age? What would society do if they knew it was coming, knew it could not be stopped..only mitigated and it was within our lifetimes?

That would, for many, lead to such total disrespect for any measure of authority in a "Why does it matter??" way (heard that before, huh?) that we may as well just throw in the towel and die now, even if it were decades away. The police state to control the anarchy of desperate hopelessness wouldn't be a world I'd much want to raise my son in.

It would be .....plenty of reason to hide every hint of it, IMO. Who knows.....?

Yes. Surviving a Mini Ice age would not be a problem. We'll just have to re-evaluate our food production methods.

Surviving an actual serious, long-term Ice Age would be more problematic. The only thing necessary is that Governments aknowledge this now and start preparing the world Economic System for this. Aparently, a Monetary Economy based on fossil fuels cannot deal effectively for everyone with an Ice Age. An Economy not based on Money that is more like, for example, "The Venus Project" can deal with this realtively easily.

However, what incentive do TPTB have for this? They would lose all power they currently have and a change like this would eliminate their dreams of depopulation.......

reply to post by Slevinq

Yes. Surviving a Mini Ice age would not be a problem. We'll just have to re-evaluate our food production methods.

I'd disagree with ya on that one. Severely disagree. As a trucker having spent a good % of my career in produce and food of one form or another? Our food production is in terrible shape ...without weather making it even worse. California produce fields are a fraction of what they had been a few years ago by deliberate rerouting of water. Nature did the job across the "Breadbasket" with drought for the same result in Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa and others. They're recovering and the Ethanol fuel over food corn seems to make it...but that figures. We can all be well traveled, green, starving people.

The last mini-ice age saw a fraction of the population and a population that knew how to grow. How long does one have to be?

2 growing seasons has our overall global surplus and stockpiles empty.

4 growing seasons of dramatically reduced production by frozen ground across traditional growing areas has dead and dying ...just like the last one historically had.

Technology not only won't help us...it makes it MUCH worse because no one today knows HOW to save themselves except "Google it!".

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Slevinq

 

Yes. Surviving a Mini Ice age would not be a problem. We'll just have to re-evaluate our food production methods.

I'd disagree with ya on that one. Severely disagree. As a trucker having spent a good % of my career in produce and food of one form or another? Our food production is in terrible shape ...without weather making it even worse. California produce fields are a fraction of what they had been a few years ago by deliberate rerouting of water. Nature did the job across the "Breadbasket" with drought for the same result in Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa and others. They're recovering and the Ethanol fuel over food corn seems to make it...but that figures. We can all be well traveled, green, starving people.

The last mini-ice age saw a fraction of the population and a population that knew how to grow. How long does one have to be?

2 growing seasons has our overall global surplus and stockpiles empty.

4 growing seasons of dramatically reduced production by frozen ground across traditional growing areas has dead and dying ...just like the last one historically had.

Technology not only won't help us...it makes it MUCH worse because no one today knows HOW to save themselves except "Google it!".

Yes, i know what you mean. However, currently used food production technology is totally outdated by more than half a century. We have had, for a few decades now, technology to grow food organically and hydroponically in Skyscraper type of buildings, regardless of the outside climate.

As I said, the type of Economy is the problem and not the weather, nor the technology.

reply to post by Slevinq


I'm thinking hard....and I can't disagree. As part of my trip to Disneyworld in 2010 we took their little behind the scenes tour for some extra hassle to see the Hydroponics and other growing tech showcased within one of the areas of Epcot. I do recall the very simple..almost childish set up they had there. It looked funny....until they explained how many harvests they get during a calendar year and just what yield they pull for comparable acreage of conventional farming.

You're absolutely right in saying technology, if fully applied as if our lives depended on it, could revolutionize food production without a single lab experiment in GMO's, and beyond anyone's wildest dreams...at least as I saw and now understand it.

The problem is...who will kick off this technology? I'd see 'TPTB' setting that sort of thing up in their own food production centers ...but never large scale availability to the general public beyond a 'see how it works? Now go figure out the details to recreate it yourself...'. If we could, we'd all have a bedroom producing enough food in that one space to supply fresh greens to ourselves and a fair part of the neighborhood around us.

I believe this climate matter is very much linked to invidual views and perhaps agendas behind the manifest. For my point of view i see climate getting warmer each year. I live in North almost in Arctic Circle which is about 100 km north from us. I remember childhood winters with -45 celsius and usual winter temperature in average close to -20 celsius. We used to have first snow in October and real winter in November, christmases were always white and cold. In last 15 years winter comes late and snow what sticks on the ground is just before christmas time and winter temperatures are in average from minus 5 to -10 degrees of celsius and we are lucky if we get -20 for a day or two. Our winters has become warmer. If you live up north you will definately see the change.

I don´t see the global warming against the possible ice age as when sweet water melts from the icebergs of Greenland it messes up the gulf stream and will cause global cooling down ..

I think its more intresting who have ordered the studies of the global climate changes and what is their agendas.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Slevinq

 

I'm thinking hard....and I can't disagree. As part of my trip to Disneyworld in 2010 we took their little behind the scenes tour for some extra hassle to see the Hydroponics and other growing tech showcased within one of the areas of Epcot. I do recall the very simple..almost childish set up they had there. It looked funny....until they explained how many harvests they get during a calendar year and just what yield they pull for comparable acreage of conventional farming.

You're absolutely right in saying technology, if fully applied as if our lives depended on it, could revolutionize food production without a single lab experiment in GMO's, and beyond anyone's wildest dreams...at least as I saw and now understand it.

The problem is...who will kick off this technology? I'd see 'TPTB' setting that sort of thing up in their own food production centers ...but never large scale availability to the general public beyond a 'see how it works? Now go figure out the details to recreate it yourself...'. If we could, we'd all have a bedroom producing enough food in that one space to supply fresh greens to ourselves and a fair part of the neighborhood around us.

edit on 30-9-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

Yes, exactly the problem. The thing is that, any sustainable production technology, whether consumer goods like food or technological items that we need links back to the so-called "free-enrgy" technology and hence the Economic System. Free energy=bye bye Monetary economy.... Tie it with our tech capability now to have automatic production of virtually 99% of everything we need from food to tech items, including homes - there would be no need for economic/monetary/debt slavery of people having to work in order to eat.....

All this would lead to total loss of control of TPTB. Hence, why we are in this ridiculous world situation.

Oh, and btw, this planet can comfortably support up to 24 billion humans if technology available half a century ago is utilized effectivelly.

Imagine how our grandchildren will laugh at us 50 years from now saying - "Were you so stupid and blind?"

We see quite well in retrospect when we want to

reply to post by Slevinq


No disagreements after all. I think we're on the same page...my bad for not seeing that sooner.

I am curious on a specific point. Where did you come up with 24 billion as a sustainable number, using effective and not predatory technology?

I don't dismiss it. Not at all. I know the number is far above what we have now, if survival of all was actually a priority to anyone ..but I'd love a number that high backed by anything solid. There are more than a couple debates at school I'd run circles in if I just had a figure like that, sourced well enough for a college environment to accept as a start.

reply to post by Slevinq


Thanks for posting. I tend to believe that we are in fact moving more towards cooling and that there is a huge agenda behind the 'Global Warming' religion.

S&F

Fascinating thread - interesting and polite discourse which seems to navigate through a series of conspiracy issues in one fell swoop. The 'energy/agriculture' question is surely the one that leaves the most bitter taste, when contemplating how much Humanity has been screwed over by those in control.

Ice Age or no, I sense that the recent shenanigans concerning the 'warning to the world's governments' is a steaming pile of BS. Surely they can't distract us with climate change forever? The most important thing for our society is a new means of powering it. Energy and agriculture start the ball rolling, and relative utopia would follow.

reply to post by Slevinq


this was discussed a couple of months back

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As i pointed out on that we are still at the end of the last ice age (supposedly), this is why things are warming up a bit at the moment.

www.bbc.co.uk...


en.wikipedia.org...


And as i posted on that thread I was taught this at school.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Slevinq

 

No disagreements after all. I think we're on the same page...my bad for not seeing that sooner.

I am curious on a specific point. Where did you come up with 24 billion as a sustainable number, using effective and not predatory technology?

I don't dismiss it. Not at all. I know the number is far above what we have now, if survival of all was actually a priority to anyone ..but I'd love a number that high backed by anything solid. There are more than a couple debates at school I'd run circles in if I just had a figure like that, sourced well enough for a college environment to accept as a start.

To tell you the truth, I am unsure where this number came up. No, don't laugh yet I'm laughing too hearing how this sounds on ATS DD . I read it somewhere in a book a long time ago so the number stuck in my mind. It said something like "with our current technology that is used now, and the present form of Economic and Social order, the planet can sustain up to 10 billion people, more or less. However, if we utilize the production and energy technologies that are available but "forbidden" we can go as high as 24 billion, comfortably". Something like that.... Sorry for not haing a source for this, it would take too much time to find. Let's call it a speculation and leave it at that. Dismiss it.

Thank you for the opinions though - it all comes from the .....MONEY "thing"

Here is intresting sea ice concentration presentation made by university of illinois.
sea ice starting from 1978 to 2006. What is obvious is that in summertime in northern hemisphere there is less and less ice coverage but winters seems pretty much same coverage. So even the winter ice seems the same it can´t be as thick as it was 40 years ago as it melts out more in summertime.

FlyInTheOintment
Fascinating thread - interesting and polite discourse which seems to navigate through a series of conspiracy issues in one fell swoop. The 'energy/agriculture' question is surely the one that leaves the most bitter taste, when contemplating how much Humanity has been screwed over by those in control.

Ice Age or no, I sense that the recent shenanigans concerning the 'warning to the world's governments' is a steaming pile of BS. Surely they can't distract us with climate change forever? The most important thing for our society is a new means of powering it. Energy and agriculture start the ball rolling, and relative utopia would follow.

Thank you, not as interesting as it can be but thank you. A much better case can be made but it would require a substatial investment of time and knowing how ATS sometimes makes a "pass" on many interesting threads, I thought it is not worth the time this time. My weakness, I apologize.

Yes, about the shinanigans and the agriculture/energy issue. The truth is that I do not really know what's going on, nor I claim to. I can only guess and speculate. The Ice Ages cycles are a fact as well as many other things. However, in a society where disinfo and "chaotic info" is s daily reality and more than the "real info" it is quite difficult not to be confused. In such a society, to be "not totally confused" but only partly is a heroic feat and I do commend all the people that have remained opened to the "alternative thoughts".

fenian8
reply to post by Slevinq

 

this was discussed a couple of months back

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As i pointed out on that we are still at the end of the last ice age (supposedly), this is why things are warming up a bit at the moment.

www.bbc.co.uk...


en.wikipedia.org...


And as i posted on that thread I was taught this at school.

Sorry brother/sister, we are not at the end of the last Ice Age. The last full Ice Age "Glaciation" ended about 10,000 - 12,000 yers ago (depending on semantics about what stage is the actual end) .If that is what you mean, I stand corrected . We are in an Inter-Glacial Period of about 10,000 years that has already ended and are due for another long Glaciation period.

The Climate is not warming up but cooling, depending on how you look at it. For example, a few thousand years ago, during the Roman period, world temperatures were warmer.


As you can see from the graph, we are in a normal cycle that is, in the long run(taking into account the last 10000 years) cooling.

reply to post by dollukka


Yes, true, more or less. However, why is hardly anyone talking about the unbalanced increase in Ice on the South Pole continent?

Oh, here it is. This is probably the most Global Warming theory destruction article, or at least one of the good ones. It is just pure, long-term historic fact. Well, of course, it's from a Russian source, so who would believe the Russian, right? They are not really part of the Western Mainstream Media so all they say must be BS, right?? DDD

The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.

Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.

And now, zie LINK: LINK