Raw data predictes high probabiity of Glaciation

a reply to: D8Tee


Two of the core samples drilled in Greenland, and the ones in Antarctica, show about five ice ages before they hit the bedrock. All of the core samples show that the longest periods between the Earths natural state of Glaciation is 12,500 years, Its now been about 12800 years since the last one. The Sun should have cooled down during the last maunder minimum, but we got a reprieve. The ice core samples show without any doubt that glaciation is fast, if its right during the next three years we should have another Maunder minimum, then a full blown return to Earths normal state. The last phase could be as little as two years.
The Ulysses sun probe shows that the suns radiation has fallen dramatically. So unless all this data is bull#, which doesn't seem to be the case the graphs speak for themselves.

I believe the trend will be more cooling
as less sunspots are registered.

will they still be screaming global warming as th eice sheets cover the canadian landmass?

a reply to: yuppa

In about 2,000 years, when the types of planetary motions that can induce polar cooling start to coincide again, the current warming trend will be a distant memory.

www.technologyreview.com...

So not any time soon for an Ice age.

a reply to: Kashai

So not any time soon for an Ice age.

We have no way of knowing that for certain, remember what the IPCC says?

The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

Link

Way I look at it is simple. How many climate scientists are concerned with global cooling? Almost all of them are shouting from the rooftops about global warming. From memory, I think it's 97% or more are convinced? So that's where I'd place my bets. However, there's a clause. I only make this decision on the basis I'm making it for others. If I'm making it for others, I obviously have to err on the side of caution and it's only reasonable.

It's very hard to imagine global cooling is what we'll get instead. This involves conspiracy. This is very much in the realm of UFOs, bigfoot and the loch ness monster, you know? This is something you entertain privately while giving heavy footnotes with exclamation marks "this is all just for fun." God forbid anybody should think you're trying to be serious. Embarrassing.

a reply to: jonnywhite

From memory, I think it's 97% or more are convinced? So that's where I'd place my bets.

No, thats a BS number. The following image is made from the data taken directly from the Cook Paper. Don't be fooled by the misleading study that was done by John Cook, a guy with a PhD in Cognitive Psychology. I am not making this up, it is them that are using trickery which this chart clearly shows.


If you wish to read the entire paper, it's not that long, here is the link, there is nothing to hide. That consensus paper is nonthing but trickery and a clever manipulation of statistics.
Link

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

See what they've done there? They should be ashamed of themselves for being so deceitful with the numbers.

Here is a chart, showing the ice grow and melt. Blue is grow, red is melt.

In this first chart, wood density was tested. The blue line is data from wood density tests, the red data is direct measurment. We can see here, that since 1850 the glaciers decrease in size. Before that, around the timeframe I said (1600-1700) glaciers grew. There are even letters from people living there around 1600-1700 complaining about the growing ice, because it takes away land.


I could not manage to find the video documentation with the letters, but I´ll try further.

This second chart, from Martin Lüthi, University of Zurich, shows a reconstruction of the alpine glacier history for the last 1600 years (this number is coincidal, has nothing to do with the year 1600!!). During the middle Ages warming period, it had a similar glacier length.


I´m not denying that mankind is responsible for some changes, like soot from the industrialisation settling on the alps, acting as warming pockets because the black particles warm up and melt more ice. Not denying that but we live through huge meteologic cycles, to act like it´s all our fault is a trick from the politics and ANGST that they induce into us normal folks.

Should we continue to blow that much smog into the amtosphere? No, we should reduce it of course. On the other hand, what we´re seeing here are natural cycles.

Source: ZAMG Zentralanstalt für Meteologie und Geodynamik (Centra linstitution for meteology and geodynamics)
www.zamg.ac.at...

a reply to: D8Tee\


Most people will prove what they are paid to prove. They have convinced most people that the Earth is warming . Even if you are cold when it should be warm. But I noticed Trump cant be bothered with the Carbon treaty, simply because he knows its a dead duck. Global warming was a well paid industry. Now its called climate change. It was just another case of political correctness, and any one who said the "King had no clothes" would be called an idiot anyway. So if it does happen the rich powerful countries will just do what they always have done.

Here are somes very interesting articles about the definition of pseudoscience:
Pseudoscience

Of importance is the criterion of falsifiability.

Not to forget Merton's norms:

-Originality: The tests and research done must present something new to the scientific community.

-Detachment: The scientists' reasons for practicing this science must be simply for the expansion of their knowledge. The scientists should not have personal reasons to expect certain results.

-Universality: No person should be able to more easily obtain the information of a test than another person. Social class, religion, ethnicity, or any other personal factors should not be factors in someone's ability to receive or perform a type of science.

-Skepticism: Scientific facts must not be based on faith. One should always question every case and argument and constantly check for errors or invalid claims.

-Public accessibility: Any scientific knowledge one obtains should be made available to everyone. The results of any research should be published and shared with the scientific community.

Here is the Demarcation problem


Very funny the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience include Climate change denial, the wording "unwarranted doubt or contrarian views" is also very telling.

global warming can and has turned into a ice age quickly before in world history.

global warming has and can stop the ocean currents and this can and has caused ice ages before.

and none of these old ice ages were caused by man.

a reply to: D8Tee


By that you mean Chaos theory and access to Non-Linear technology

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: D8Tee


By that you mean Chaos theory and access to Non-Linear technology

NO, you are confused, read again what the IPCC has stated, your reference to Non-Linear technology is baffling, where did you pull that from? There is no need for interpretation, it's quite straightforward.

The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

a reply to: D8Tee

Quantum chaos is a branch of physics which studies how chaotic classical dynamical systems can be described in terms of quantum theory. The primary question that quantum chaos seeks to answer is: "What is the relationship between quantum mechanics and classical chaos?" The correspondence principle states that classical mechanics is the classical limit of quantum mechanics. If this is true, then there must be quantum mechanisms underlying classical chaos (although this may not be a fruitful way of examining classical chaos). If quantum mechanics does not demonstrate an exponential sensitivity to initial conditions, how can exponential sensitivity to initial conditions arise in classical chaos, which must be the correspondence principle limit of quantum mechanics?[1][2] In seeking to address the basic question of quantum chaos, several approaches have been employed:

en.wikipedia.org...

Actually its a very interesting effort.

Quantum mechanics is not chaotic, but probabilistic. It has strict solutions of the equations determining the behavior of particles and fields, but these solution describe and predict probabilities of observation. The wave nature of the underlying reality is a probability wave , i.e. the probability of finding a particle at (x,y,z) at time t fluctuates according to the solution of the equations. It is not a matter wave in the sense of a wave on water, where one can measure the energy carried at different (x,y,z)s . Whenever an elementary partice is measured it appears at a strict (x,y,z) as a point with all its mass. Atoms are composites of elementary particles and follow the same equations and behavior.

Thus the relationship of quantum mechanics with deterministic chaos ( which is the chaos used in physics) is similar to the relationship a Picasso picture has to the atoms and molecules composing it. Deterministic chaos paints a mathematically different view of many particle systems to the one of thermodynamics, and allows to explain and predict macroscopic behaviors of classical systems.

physics.stackexchange.com...

Actually this is a rather dumb response as Chaos theory presents that nothing is actually probabilistic. While the link offers that quantum presents as probabilistic. Its apparent that given probabilistic conclusions about reality are actually deterministic and this due to Quantum Chaos. Implied is that quantum events are adherents of Chaos theory and Quantum Mechanics.

Any thoughts?

a reply to: D8Tee


Are you working on anything new?

a reply to: D8Tee


Talking about the IPCC they tried to supress a paper, which is a problem.
and from mainstream we seem to have correlation.

a reply to: D8Tee

Wow, that 1974 CIA paper is quite an eye opener......thx D8Tee for linking it.

They state "Climate Change" (yes it is mentioned as such), started in 1960....after a relatively best 100 years or so of Earth weather for 400 years, where populations increased, crops increased abundant food etc....until 1960, then crops failed etc etc.

Great read......So obviously, countries cant say that they didnt know "Climate Change" was going to be a future threat to Humanity.....they knew it in 1974.

I recently looked up the ethnic makeup of Finland....just out of curiosity.
Apparently, 7000 years ago, Finland was covered with forests and was much warmer than today, with little amount of ice and snow.
We know 6000 years ago much of the Sahara was a lush forest area.
We know 2000 years ago, during the Roman and civilisation expansion, there was a warming period in Europe (not sure of the rest of the World).

All this means is, our Earth is Dynamic, our Sun is Dynamic, and "Change" is the Norm, not the Unusual.
We have just be lucky over the past 100+ years, climate wise.....

But We will adapt to the environment, and many will perish......as they have before.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: D8Tee

That is a GREAT video. John Casey gives a an excellent interview there.

Like he says the difference between his research and the IPCC's is that he takes into account the 800 pound gorilla in the room, the Sun.

John Casey Wikipedia

a reply to: gort51

Wow, that 1974 CIA paper is quite an eye opener......thx D8Tee for linking it.

Since then the earth has experienced huge population growth. A couple really cold years resulting in crop failures and there's going to be mass starvation. The world won't be able to react quickly enough. What people don't understand is that if you have widespread killing frost, it's not like you can just throw up a some greenhouses and grow enough to compensate for that. It would happen fast, and decimate the food supply.