Earth Enters New Cold Climate Era

[DarrinS]

Food and Ethanol Shortages Imminent as Earth Enters New Cold Climate Era (http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html)





Monday, May 10, 2010

11:30 AM



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.” In follow-up to the specific global temperature forecast posted in SSRC Press Release 4-2009, the SSRC advises that in order to return to the long term decline slope from the current El Nino induced high temperatures, a significant global cold weather re-direction must occur. According to SSRC Director John Casey, “The Earth typically makes adjustments in major temperature spikes within two to three years. In this case as we cool down from El Nino, we are dealing with the combined effects of this planetary thermodynamic normalization and the influence of the more powerful underlying global temperature downturn brought on by the solar hibernation. Both forces will present the first opportunity since the period of Sun-caused global warming period ended to witness obvious harmful agricultural impacts of the new cold climate. Analysis shows that food and crop derived fuel will for the first time, become threatened in the next two and a half years. Though the SSRC does not get involved with short term weather prediction, it would not be unusual to see these ill-effects this year much less within the next 30 months.”

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. Surprising cold weather fronts will adversely impact all northern grain crops including of course wheat and the corn used in ethanol for automotive fuel.

In pointing out the importance and reliability of this new temperature forecast and its effects on North American crops, Director Casey adds,” The SSRC has been the only US independent research organization to correctly predict in advance three of the most important events in all of climate science history. We accurately announced beforehand, the end of global warming, a long term drop in the Earth’s temperatures and most importantly the advent of a historic drop in the Sun’s output, a solar hibernation. The US government’s leading science organizations, NASA and NOAA have completely missed all three, as of course have United Nations climate change experts. It is only because of the amount of expected criticism we received because of our strong opposition to the Obama administration’s climate change policies and our declaration of the end of global warming, that the SSRC is not more fully accepted for its leadership role in climate change forecasting. The facts and reliability surrounding our well publicized predictions however stand as testament to the SSRC’s proven ability to understand the nature of global climate change. In view of the importance of this new forecast I have notified the Secretary of Agriculture to take immediate actions to prepare the nation’s agricultural industry for the coming crop damage.”

The SSRC places only one caveat on this forecast. Casey elaborates, “Only a stronger solar cycle with a period longer than the 206 year cycle can cause us to alter our projections. Although more research is needed in this area, none have yet shown themselves. The present hibernation is proceeding in almost lock step as the last one which occurred from 1793 to 1830. If it continues on present course, while the cold weather impacts on food and fuel announced today are certainly important, they do not compare with what is to follow later. At the bottom of the cold cycle of this hibernation in the late 2020’s and 2030’s there will likely be years with devastating to total crop losses in the Canadian and northern US grain regions.”

[MiamiHeat]

Global Cooling

this is certainly a man made phenomena. We are destroying the earth so much so that we will end up freezing to death.

[boutons_deux]

which oil/coal/gas corps finance these clowns?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3154682&mesg_id=3155862

[DarrinS]

which oil/coal/gas corps finance these clowns?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3154682&mesg_id=3155862


Are they hiding any inconvenient data?

[RandomGuy]

which oil/coal/gas corps finance these clowns?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3154682&mesg_id=3155862

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id1.html


Headquartered in Orlando, Florida, the Space and Science Research Center (SSRC) is the leading science and engineering research company internationally, that specializes in the analysis of and planning for climate changes based upon the "Theory of Relational Cycles of Solar Activity," also called the RC Theory. (See Services).

The SSRC is best recognized for its Director John Casey who was the first US solar activity researcher who accurately predicted and publicly announced to the US government and the main stream media the following important climate change events in advance:
1. The end of global warming.
2. The long term decline in the Earth's average temperatures,
3. The start of the next climate change, and
4. The beginning of a dramatic reduction in solar activity, a "solar hibernation."
5. The potential for a global subsistence crisis because of the coming cold climate era.

The SSRC actively solicits research funding and study contracts from qualified, reputable sources. Because of the mission of SSRC to provide unbiased, objective research and opinions and in view of the polarized, extremist nature of the current climate change debate, the SSRC presently does not accept requests from coal, oil and gas, utility companies, or environmental organizations or their intermediaries. We do accept funding from well intended, open minded individuals and organizations who value the independent position and capability a science research company like SSRC can provide. As of June 16, 2009, all funding of SSRC research to date has been provided directly and solely by its Director.

Pretty much one guy and his theory.

Basically the guy has a counterveiling theory that makes him the reluctant darling of people like Darrin and WC.

If the guys predictions pan out in observed cycles, then more power to him. I am all about the science.

But, as your link states if his work is actually peer reviewed, there is no indication on his website.

You can call something "scientific" on your website, but until it is reviewed by other people in the applicable field with say, PhD's (unlike Mr. Casey, whose undergrad degrees don't quite cut it), you can't really say that your theory has stood up to scrutiny.

[DarrinS]

http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/141_0.png

[RandomGuy]

http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/141_0.png

zORv8wwiadQ

[DarrinS]

Back in the early 70's, DDT was banned because it was believed to be a carcinogen (even though there has been no documented cases). Unfortunately, banning DDT has resulted in over 100 million deaths from milaria, most of those cases being in Africa.

[jack sommerset]

Now we are in a cold era, what the fuck is going on?!?! My family changed all the light bulbs in our house, goddamnit!

[ChumpDumper]

Back in the early 70's, DDT was banned because it was believed to be a carcinogen (even though there has been no documented cases). Unfortunately, banning DDT has resulted in over 100 million deaths from milaria, most of those cases being in Africa.Eh, in places they started spraying DDT again for malaria, they found that mosquitoes had become resistant to it. Guess your mailing list must've missed that one, Darrin.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Now we are in a cold era, what the fuck is going on?!?! My family changed all the light bulbs in our house, goddamnit!

stop lying jackie..we know you don't care about the environment..

[jack sommerset]

stop lying jackie..we know you don't care about the environment..

Give me one example on how I don't care about the enviroment. Just one, genius.

[DarrinS]

Eh, in places they started spraying DDT again for malaria, they found that mosquitoes had become resistant to it. Guess your mailing list must've missed that one, Darrin.

Eh, according to the WHO, the number of reported cases of malaria has been reduced by more than 50% since they began using DDT again.

[word]

Exxon causes Jupiter to lose stripe:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1277734/Jupiter-loses-stripes-scientists-idea-why.html

[ChumpDumper]

Eh, according to the WHO, the number of reported cases of malaria has been reduced by more than 50% since they began using DDT again.Eh, thanks for proving my point. It used to effectively reduce that number 100%. It is now an expensive Deep Woods Off.

[DarrinS]

Eh, thanks for proving my point. It used to effectively reduce that number 100%. It is now an expensive Deep Woods Off.

http://seekerblog.com//wp-content/uploads/200707141553.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Again, thanks. It's more repellent than killer these days. Not that that in itself is a bad thing -- it changes the way it should be used.

[Winehole23]

DarrinS, climate-change alarmist?

[Winehole23]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BuWhRVJU0js/SBjr-XIJHTI/AAAAAAAAADo/5PIWIrxXJr0/s400/best-funny-pictures_ironic.jpg

[Winehole23]

http://magsol.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/funny-pictures-cat-sleeps-in-an-ironic-place.jpg

[Winehole23]

http://doesthishurt.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/20081210_160048.jpg

[Winehole23]

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0806/irony-demotivational-poster-1212540844.jpg

[Oh, Gee!!]

which oil/coal/gas corps finance these clowns?

I don't think he's being financed to undermine a global warming theory, I think he's using "science" as a pitch to sale his services to government agencies and large corporations.

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id4.html

The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), provides services in an authoritative, independent, and unbiased manner within the following areas:

National and international government planning for the next climate change to a cold era.

Strategic business planning and preparation for the transition to the next global climate change era.

National defense preparedness strategies for dealing with climate change.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Exxon causes Jupiter to lose stripe:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1277734/Jupiter-loses-stripes-scientists-idea-why.html

what are you babbling about? nowhere in the article you posted was Exxon mentioned. you're an idiot.

[boutons_deux]

NASA: Easily the hottest April — and hottest Jan-April — in temperature record

Plus a new record 12-month global temperature, as predicted


http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/16/nasa-easily-the-hottest-january-and-hottest-jan-april-in-temperature-record/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Cli mate+Progress%29

[Wild Cobra]

NASA: Easily the hottest April — and hottest Jan-April — in temperature record

Plus a new record 12-month global temperature, as predicted


http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/16/nasa-easily-the-hottest-january-and-hottest-jan-april-in-temperature-record/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Cli mate+Progress%29
You have to remember. Two of the AGW activists work for NASA/GISS and have already been shown to manipulate past temperature data.

James Hansen heads the NASA/GISS in New York City.

Gavin Schmidt is a climatologist and climate modeler at the NASA/GISS. He is also is a founding member of the propaganda site RealClimate.

It's hard to trust NASA/GISS. They are just another arm of the political structure to control us through fear.

[RandomGuy]

You have to remember. Two of the AGW activists work for NASA/GISS and have already been shown to manipulate past temperature data.

Link?


It's hard to trust NASA/GISS. They are just another arm of the political structure to control us through fear.

Link?

You have some form of proof of this conspiracy and their motives?

[Wild Cobra]

Link?



Link?

You have some form of proof of this conspiracy and their motives?

I'm not going to look up past data we already covered, a year or two ago. Don't you remember the threads covering temperature being wrong? That was manipulation by James Hansen. Remember, something like 1938 is again the hottest year rather than something like 1998...

Believe as you will anyway. Another reason I will not bother reopening information we all have already seen is because no matter the proof, you don't care. You will find reason to disagree anyway.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not going to look up past data we already covered, a year or two ago. Don't you remember the threads covering temperature being wrong? That was manipulation by James Hansen. Remember, something like 1938 is again the hottest year rather than something like 1998...

Believe as you will anyway. Another reason I will not bother reopening information we all have already seen is because no matter the proof, you don't care. You will find reason to disagree anyway.

"manipulation" with some evil intent was never anything you proved, if memory serves.

(shrugs) Maybe some climate scientists are greedy, and falsify data. It would not surprise me if one out of the thousands do.

The overall weight of evidence still points to a pretty fair possibility that our actions are starting to markedly affect our climate systems.

You have always in the past declined to admit there may be some tipping points out there where some systemic feedback loop might cause some pretty disasterous effects.

You will find a reason to disagree no matter how good the proof or science you are presented with, because that is your bias.

The reason my mind remains unchanged, is because, for all the picking around the edges you make and all the unsubstantiated claims of evil conspiracies out there, what I understand as the bulk of the data still tilts towards the AGW theory, and the real potential of rather nasty outcomes.

We have a fair possibility of some pretty bad outcomes, and taking some reasonable steps to mitigate those risks is the best, most logical course.

The fact that taking those steps now is better for our economy in the long run, quite the opposite of what people like you claim, simply makes it a slam dunk in my mind.

Ultimately the real weakness in your policy position is that you can't support the claim that the economy will be harmed by taking steps to limit CO2.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe new information like this will help:

Crisis in New Zealand climatology (http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/05/crisis-in-new-zealand-climatology)

[RandomGuy]

Maybe new information like this will help:

Crisis in New Zealand climatology (http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/05/crisis-in-new-zealand-climatology)

They seem to have some fairly good weight of scientific background there.

They have though, a very specific agenda as well, being people "who are concerned at the misleading information being disseminated about climate change and so-called anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.'"

They have made up their minds and are finding data to support their thesis.

You tell me not to believe the IPCC because they "have an agenda", but this group does too.

I think their calls for more openness in the data gathered by the NZ SSS is a good thing, but you can't tell me that the group that puts a quote at the front of every article that suggests that environmentalists are out to enslave everybody is going to give me an objective look at any data.

I am still left with the same conclusion.

If that group gets some solid data, and does some solid research supporting their theory that gets some modicum of peer review, let me know.

[boutons_deux]

Ocean Warmed Significantly Over Past 16 Years

"The new study, detailed in the May 20 issue of the journal Nature, revealed that the top 2,300 feet (700 meters) of the world's oceans warmed 0.64 watts per square meter from 1993 to 2008. That's equal to adding the energy from 100 million atomic bombs to the ocean each year during the 16-year period, "

http://www.livescience.com/environment/ocean-warming-100519.html

[Phenomanul]

"manipulation" with some evil intent was never anything you proved, if memory serves.

(shrugs) Maybe some climate scientists are greedy, and falsify data. It would not surprise me if one out of the thousands do.

The overall weight of evidence still points to a pretty fair possibility that our actions are starting to markedly affect our climate systems.

You have always in the past declined to admit there may be some tipping points out there where some systemic feedback loop might cause some pretty disasterous effects.

You will find a reason to disagree no matter how good the proof or science you are presented with, because that is your bias.

The reason my mind remains unchanged, is because, for all the picking around the edges you make and all the unsubstantiated claims of evil conspiracies out there, what I understand as the bulk of the data still tilts towards the AGW theory, and the real potential of rather nasty outcomes.

We have a fair possibility of some pretty bad outcomes, and taking some reasonable steps to mitigate those risks is the best, most logical course.

The fact that taking those steps now is better for our economy in the long run, quite the opposite of what people like you claim, simply makes it a slam dunk in my mind.

Ultimately the real weakness in your policy position is that you can't support the claim that the economy will be harmed by taking steps to limit CO2.


:wow :wow

Are you serious?

One of the pillars of this economy is based on the strength of the energy sector... non-attainable CO2 caps impose greater operating strains on production facilities (refineries, electrical plants, waste-water treatment plants, manufacturing plants, etc...) strains which are then passed on to the consumers: us... simply because the operational costs for producing electricity are inherently driven much, much higher. Transportation prices will go up, food costs will go up, manufacturing costs will go up, product prices will follow suit... ultimately, the price of everything is driven up... simply because misdirected policies are forcing added inefficiencies to their processes...

You'd have to be blind not to see that domino effect...

All the while, countries who don't give an iota of crap about the environment will cash in...

All for what? Bad science, and political meandering...

Please tell us how man shrunk the ice caps on Mars? No AGW supporter can legitimately answer this question without debasing the premise for their own earth-based anthropomorphic beliefs.

[Phenomanul]

Ocean Warmed Significantly Over Past 16 Years

"The new study, detailed in the May 20 issue of the journal Nature, revealed that the top 2,300 feet (700 meters) of the world's oceans warmed 0.64 watts per square meter from 1993 to 2008. That's equal to adding the energy from 100 million atomic bombs to the ocean each year during the 16-year period, "

http://www.livescience.com/environment/ocean-warming-100519.html

If we keep eliminating temperature sensing buoys from higher latitudes year after year after year why should anyone be surprised?

[Wild Cobra]

Ocean Warmed Significantly Over Past 16 Years

"The new study, detailed in the May 20 issue of the journal Nature, revealed that the top 2,300 feet (700 meters) of the world's oceans warmed 0.64 watts per square meter from 1993 to 2008. That's equal to adding the energy from 100 million atomic bombs to the ocean each year during the 16-year period, "

http://www.livescience.com/environment/ocean-warming-100519.html
This trend had been going on for maybe 100 years of more. There is no way that the atmosphere is going to warm the ocean that much. The ocean however, absorbs about 90% of the solar radiation it receives, and the sun got sronger over the course of about fifty years starting about 1900.

0.64 watts over 15 years is just over 0.04 watts per year. In the 1800's, the average solar radiation was about 1364.7 watts. From 1950 to 2000. we had an average of about 1366.2 watts. This is a 0.11% increase. Apply that to the 168 watts average (year 2000) that makes it to the earths source, at 90% absorption of the oceans, you get a 167.834 watt figure for 1900, or a 0.166 watt increase annually. This indicates we have balanced to about the 75% point of the increase since are 15 year average was 0.04 annually of the 0.166 watt increase.

Please note, as the oceans increase in temperature, their ability to absorb CO2 is diminishes, and the equilibrium changes. Otherwise, the oceans would have absorbed well over 95% of the CO2 man has added to the atmosphere.

It doesn't matter much how much CO2 we output. Even if we didn't add any to the atmosphere, CO2 levels would have increased. Anyone who understands the sciences that include gas solubility in fluids know this.


Note: all my reference to "watts" is watts per square meter.