We May Be Pushing The Earth Into A New Ice Age!!

Originally posted by MissSmartypants
As many of us here on ATS know our sun has been in a deep solar minimum since 2008 which according to some maybe responsible for the current extreme cold we're experiencing.


According to University of Oklahoma geophysicist Daved Deming...

"By reducing our production of carbon dioxide, we risk hastening the advent of the next ice age. Even more foolhardy and dangerous is the Obama administration's announcement that they may try to cool the planet through geo-engineering. Such a move in the middle of a cooling trend could provoke the irreversible onset of an ice age."

www.newsweekly.com.au...

He added, "Earth's climate is controlled by the Sun. In comparison, every other factor is trivial. The coldest part of the Little Ice Age during the latter half of the seventeenth century was marked by the nearly complete absence of sunspots. And the Sun now appears to be entering a new period of quiescence.

It's bad enough that TPTB are using the global warming scare in an attempt to gain further control over our lives but now those arrogant ignorant idiots are risking killing us all, themselves included, by bringing on a new ice age!

Did we really need another thread about how 90% of the people don't understand how global warming works? I'm pretty sure there is at least 2 threads on the front page that cover this same crap. Why not just add your article to them?

Just because its winter everyone is now in Ice age mode.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by whoshotJR]

reply to post by whoshotJR


I'm not so sure, I think this is a valid point, are we pushing ourselves into a new ice age with the actions we are taking at the moment? is in my opinion a good question.

Having worked implementing EU environmental directives in corporates across Europe the information on the problems I get are sketchy to say the least. The Bods I've talked to who are meant to know all the ins and outs as to how this should unfold and what we should be doing to combat the changes all appear to work on guestimation at best.

For example I implemented a solution to reclaim the heavy metals in WEEE across 8 EU member states, I worked closely with the Environmental agencies in all those states, and defined solutions that meet the legislation in those states.

But and here is the big BUT, reclaiming those metals is done via smelting, so instead of putting those metals in a landfill to poison the earth we are smelting them and using the plastics as a heat source in the smelting process then pushing the result into the atmosphere (I have no idea what damage this may cause)

The solution benefits the corporates alone, and looking at this one example, no wonder China want to keep a tight reign on there rare earth metals when Western corporates are the ones reclaiming them via this method, so the process is for corporate profit and not for the benefit of the Environment.

So we are shifting the problem from one arena to another, but what will the effect be? Dealing with WEEE alone we are talking of 20 million tonnes a year in the EU, and I for one do not know what the effect the reclamation process will have in the short or long term if we continue uses such processes, and no one I know in that circle knows either.

reply to post by melatonin


Well, thank you for your imput first of all and secondly the source I sited stated that they did not adjust for the urban effect when reading the temperature data....so....I don't know.

businessandmedia.org...

reply to post by thoughtsfull


And your point is ...maybe that...the increase of air borne particles into the air by burning of industrial substances can increase cooling by reflecting more sunlight back into space? ...Okay.... and stop doing that by the way.

Originally posted by MissSmartypants
reply to post by melatonin

 

Well, thank you for your imput first of all and secondly the source I sited stated that they did not adjust for the urban effect when reading the temperature data....so....I don't know.

businessandmedia.org...

No worries.

Probably best to go to the horses mouth to understand how the data is assessed:

The GHCN/USHCN/SCAR data are modified in two steps to obtain station data from which our tables, graphs, and maps are constructed. In step 1, if there are multiple records at a given location, these are combined into one record; in step 2, the urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.

NASA-GISS

There's a reason certain groups keep pushing these specious memes, and it's not an honest one.



[edit on 11-1-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Again thank you.
So it would seem everyone has an agenda. Who to trust? Who to trust?

Well anyway, our deep solar minimum should be subsiding just in time for the 2012 solar flares that will knock out our electronics per Mr. Michio Kaku.

[edit on 1/11/2010 by MissSmartypants]

Originally posted by MissSmartypants
Again thank you.
So it would seem everyone has an agenda. Who to trust? Who to trust?

Well, of course most would expect me to say this, but the agenda of the majority of the climate scientists is to understand and clear the fog. Others prefer to blow smoke.

You makes your choices. We've been here before (tobacco wars).

Well anyway, our deep solar minimum should be subsiding just in time for the 2012 solar flares that will knock out our electronics per Mr. Michio Kaku.

Time will tell.

reply to post by melatonin


My actual thoughts on the matter is that yes global warming is real and may very well be exacerbated by our CO2 production but that just maybe the sun being in a deep solar minimum since 2008 may be contributing to our recent cold weather. And I must assume that those looking to manipulate our environment are taking all these variables in consideration. At least I hope so. There's alot a stake.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by MissSmartypants
Again thank you.
So it would seem everyone has an agenda. Who to trust? Who to trust?

Well, of course most would expect me to say this, but the agenda of the majority of the climate scientists is to understand and clear the fog. Others prefer to blow smoke.

You mean like the IPCC authors who "outright rejected" the truth about Himalayan glaciers?

Who rely upon "grey literature" for their "scientific consensus" and reports?

Who "did exactly what was expected from them?"

Who persist in distorting and misrepresenting opinions as "science" or "peer-reviewed" when they are neither?

Is that what you mean by "blowing smoke?" How does any of that admitted chicanery "clear the fog?"

I suppose it "clear" all the way to bank with gov't funding and grant money?

Glaciologists are this week arguing over how a highly contentious claim about the speed at which glaciers are melting came to be included in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

So who, exactly, takes stories from popular magazines and turns them into “consensus?” IPCC?

In 1999 New Scientist reported a comment by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who said in an email interview with this author that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035.
Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, who was then chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice's working group on Himalayan glaciology, has never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now says the comment was "speculative".
Despite the 10-year-old New Scientist report being the only source, the claim found its way into the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas.

New Scientist::Debate Heats Up Over IPCC Melting-glaciers Claim

Oops! Distorted, did we?

Chapter 10 of the report says: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world."
The inclusion of this statement has angered many glaciologists, who regard it as unjustified. Vijay Raina, a leading Indian glaciologist, wrote in a discussion paper published by the Indian government in November that there is no sign of "abnormal" retreat in Himalayan glaciers. India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, accused the IPCC of being "alarmist".
The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has hit back, denouncing the Indian government report as "voodoo science" lacking peer review. He adds that "we have a very clear idea of what is happening" in the Himalayas.
The IPCC report sources the prediction to a document published by the environment group WWF in 2005; this document quotes the New Scientist article as its source. The WWF report describes the prediction as "disturbing", without specifically endorsing it.
Nonetheless, the IPCC report goes further, concluding without citing further evidence that the prediction is "very likely" – a term that it says means a likelihood of greater than 90 per cent.
Graham Cogley, a geographer from Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, says the 2035 date is extremely unlikely. "At current melting rates it might take up to 10 times longer," he says.
However, the lead author of the IPCC chapter, Indian glaciologist Murari Lal, told New Scientist he "outright rejected" the notion that the IPCC was off the mark on Himalayan glaciers. "The IPCC authors did exactly what was expected from them," he says.
"We relied rather heavily on grey [not peer-reviewed] literature, including the WWF report," Lal says. "The error, if any, lies with Dr Hasnain's assertion and not with the IPCC authors."
But Hasnain rejects that. He blames the IPCC for misusing a remark he made to a journalist. "The magic number of 2035 has not [been] mentioned in any research papers written by me, as no peer-reviewed journal will accept speculative figures," he told New Scientist.
"It is not proper for IPCC to include references from popular magazines or newspapers," Hasnain adds.

I am reminded of the book Alice in Wonderland where one substance would make Alice bigger and another substance would make her smaller. It was difficult to ingest just the right quantity of each to achieve the correct size. More CO2 makes us too hot...less makes us too cold. Where's Baby Bear when you need him?(this one's juuust right!)

Originally posted by MissSmartypants
I am reminded of the book Alice in Wonderland where one substance would make Alice bigger and another substance would make her smaller. It was difficult to ingest just the right quantity of each to achieve the correct size. More CO2 makes us too hot...less makes us too cold. Where's Baby Bear when you need him?(this one's juuust right!)

Baby Bear is most likely Great grandpa bear by now.
But he would be a good one to ask about these things.lol
I first became interested in weather when first introduced to archeology 35 years ago.
What sparked my interest was that the older village type artifacts were usually found at the oceans edge or under the water.
This was a gradual but sure progression of sea level rise. Attested to, prior to the industrial age.
A book called Ace Age Lost, by Gwen Schultz convinced me that the premise of your OP would eventually come to pass.
Yes the harder we make it for the earth to cool off the more hard the earth will try to counter.
So I agree with you. And here we are! We are heating and Mother nature is getting pissed.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


I was reading an article that stated that an ice age is the normal state of being for the earth and that these brief warm interglacial periods are the anomalies. So I imagine the ocean levels have risen and fell many times.

Originally posted by MissSmartypants
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

I was reading an article that stated that an ice age is the normal state of being for the earth and that these brief warm interglacial periods are the anomalies. So I imagine the ocean levels have risen and fell many times.

This is true. I think the last one known in the Americas was the Wisconsin,
It ended it's advance on the east coast on 42nd street New York City. And then retreated back through the Poconos and is lingering near the Arctic Circle.
The last time 2,000 feet of ice flowed over the Blue Ridge mountains was about 16-17,000 years ago.
Of course the ice advanced globally from the poles.

Moraine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
End moraines or terminal moraines are ridges of unconsolidated debris deposited at the snout or end of the glacier. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moraine - Similar

A terminal moraine, also called end moraine, is a moraine that forms at the end of the glacier called the snout.

Terminal moraines mark the maximum advance of the glacier. An end moraine is at the present boundary of the glacier.

Terminal moraines are one of the most prominent types of moraines in the Arctic. One famous terminal moraine is the Giant's Wall in Norway which, according to legend, was built by giants to keep intruders out of their realm. It is now known that terminal moraines are created at the edge of the greatest extent of the glacier. At this point, the debris that has been accumulated by plucking and abrasion, that has been pushed by the front edge of the ice is driven no farther, but instead is dumped in a heap. Because the glacier acts very much like a conveyor belt, the longer it stays in one place, the greater the amount of material that will be deposited. The moraine is left as the marking point of the terminal extent of the ice.

In North America, the Outer Lands is a name given to the terminal moraine archipelago of the northeast United States (Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, Block Island and Long Island). Other prominent examples of terminal moraines are the Tinley Moraine and the Valparaiso Moraine, perhaps the best examples of terminal moraines in North America. These moraines are most clearly seen southwest of Chicago. End

Modern man/woman developed amongst this most exciting boundary. And has developed into a bunch of crack heads that think they are smarter than Mother Nature, Keeper of the Earth.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Well, you certainly do know an awful lot about moraines. And now I do too. Thanks for the contribution.
Unfortunately it may be too late for us to sit back and do nothing while mother nature does her thing. "Her thing" may not be conducive to the continuation of the human race on planet earth.

reply to post by whoshotJR

Just because its winter everyone is now in Ice age mode.

No - the problem is this: in 1998 we had record highs. They said "global warming" is to blame, yet here we are, in the midst of a solar minimum, experiencing record lows, China has the worst sea ice it has seen in over 30 years, and yet.....no mention of climate change. No mention it is very cold, or colder than average, by a large margin.

None of this cold weather fits with anything climate change. It is supposed to be getting warmer, not colder (even though they dropped "global warming", they keep implying it), yet the world is right now posting record lows.

melatonin talks of "anomalies", but what the hell are these in actuality? Is it another way of saying "adjusted figures"? If so, how are they are adjusted, *and in which direction*?

If they are adjusted to allow for UHI (Urban Heat Island effect), then you want to knock 2 to 3 degrees celcius off the absolute recorded value.

en.wikipedia.org...

The siting of the screen is very important to minimise the effects of buildings and trees. Environment Canada, for example, recommends that the screen be placed at least twice the distance of the height of the object, e.g., 20 m from any tree that is 10 m high, or 40 ft from one 20 ft high. In the northern hemisphere, the door of the screen should always face north so as to prevent direct sunlight on the thermometers. However, in polar regions with twenty-four hour sunlight the observer must take care to shield the thermometers from the sun and at the same time avoiding a rise in temperature being caused by the observer's body heat.

The use of a standard screen theoretically allows temperatures to be compared accurately with those measured in earlier years and at different places. However, theory is not borne out in fact. A 2007 survey of a quarter of the 1,221 stations that make up the U.S. Historical Climatology Network, performed by volunteers coordinated by meteorologist Anthony Watts, showed that over half of the stations fall short of U.S. federal guidelines for optimum placement. Some stations never met the guidelines from the start and other stations that at one time may have met the guidelines were compromised by artificial heat sources introduced since their erection, causing them to report abnormally high temperatures.[2][3]

Originally posted by MissSmartypants
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

Well, you certainly do know an awful lot about moraines. And now I do too. Thanks for the contribution.
Unfortunately it may be too late for us to sit back and do nothing while mother nature does her thing. "Her thing" may not be conducive to the continuation of the human race on planet earth.

My glass is always above half full.
You are welcome to some of mine. Pinot Grigio at the moment.
Big Momma ain' t failed us yet.
Ask the birds. The gators, possums, clams and worms.
Man will make good food for these survivors and the larvae of insects like flies.

reply to post by ChemicalSubstance


An excellent video! Star!

If the model predicted a "level period" in temperatures, why no mention of this *at the start of the decade*?

If the Met Office is the worlds best, then frankly it still has a hell of a long way to go.

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


So "climate change" (the preferred term now apparently) experts are baseing their claims on improperly acquired data....and the "fixes" they will be recommending will be the wrong fixes. Remember GIGO? Garbage in....garbage out? Same principle.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by MissSmartypants

 

One of the reasons that big interest uses propaganda along with our own governments on the people is because people has become illiterate when it comes to historical facts and records, children have no longer interest in history in our schools

The last "Little Ice Age" which occurred between the 14th and 19th Centuries. Basically, it was a period of cooling (perhaps only a few degrees) which scientists theorize may have been caused by changing warm/cold water currents in the Atlantic Ocean. This cooling, though hardly on par with a major ice age, had a profound effect on Europe

Our civil war in the US was fought during the last century of the mini ice age, we are due for a major climate change, and it has nothing to do with how we humans are using our resources, that is the scaremongering on big interest for the money grabbing scam they are wagging on us the people.

We are due for another ice age be a major ice age or just another mini one.

Plain and simple.

I wish people will educate themselves more on historical accounts and facts so they do not fall blindly on the scam of big interest for money profiting

You have a good handle on this marg.

Cuppacafe » Blog Archive » When the Hudson River and Long ...
Dec 21, 2009 ... "Long Island Sound was almost completely clogged with ice, and people were able to cross from Long Island to the vicinity of Stamford on the ... George Washington's troops were shivering in winter quarters at Morristown, ...

cuppacafe.com/when-the-hudson-river-and-long-island-s... - Similar

Global warming is making the weather system more chaotic. Thus the greater extremes. Hot and cold.