The Ice Age is Coming

[Wild Cobra]

Probably not, but you never know...

Scientists are now confirming that the suns current reduction in sunspot activity, and prediction lack of sunspots during the next cycle, will cause global cooling. Some have talked of a mini ice age.

Don't believe me, you all know how to google.

Here is just one anyway:

Not by Fire but by Ice - THE NEXT ICE AGE - NOW! (http://www.iceagenow.com/)

[clambake]

now you believe scientists lol

[Wild Cobra]

What the hell, here are a few more:

Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/)

The mini ice age starts here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html)

Researchers Crack the Mystery of the Missing Sunspots (http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/02mar_spotlesssun/)

Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/23sep_solarwind/)

Don't forget these:

Solar Global Warming (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109562)

The Next Ice Age (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132325)

Sun Spots (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135417)

Black Carbon Global Warming (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109885)

[Wild Cobra]

now you believe scientists lol
Yes, these are scientists. Not climatologists.

[Trainwreck2100]

have you seen the day after tomorrow? this shit will only affect everyone not in texas.

[Wild Cobra]

have you seen the day after tomorrow? this shit will only affect everyone not in texas.
LOL...

What a fake ass show.

[SnakeBoy]

Yeah WC it's really freakin hot now...stop rubbing it in.

[CuckingFunt]

LOL...

What a fake ass show.

For posterity.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

That's pretty cool.

[RandomGuy]

Scientists see sunspot "hibernation" but no Ice Age (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110615/sc_nm/us_climate_sunspots)


They had no answer as to whether this might be true, and said nothing about whether the Maunder Minimum -- named for astronomer E.H. Maunder -- was related to a long cold period in Europe and other parts of the Northern Hemisphere known as the Little Ice Age.

How strong a connection is there between a Little Ice Age and a Maunder Minimum? "Not as strong a connection as people would like to believe," Hill said by phone.

"The Little Ice Age actually lasted for hundreds of years, of which the Maunder Minimum was only a small segment ... My personal opinion is that there is only an anecdotal connection without a whole lot of scientific background behind it."

Several websites and blogs have argued that the potentially cooling influence of a lower level of sunspot activity could cancel out the warming caused by human activities that generate climate-warming greenhouse gases. Hill disputed this.

"In my opinion, it is a huge leap ... to an abrupt global cooling, since the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood," he said in an e-mail.

I shudder to think what would happen were I to bother clicking on the links you provide and what the "scientists" in the articles actually say.

Not going to hold my breath waiting on your confirmation bias' predisposed belief system to pan out, sorry.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I knew yahoo was always more credible than NASA.

[CosmicCowboy]

No problem. AGW will save us.

[Agloco]

This is a clip of Will talking to a reporter about the issue.

9rEXe4y1d8Q

And Corbyn from the UK

8BaeauWtZ74

And Will's statement before Congress in 2003:

http://epw.senate.gov/108th/Soon_072903.htm

[redzero]

Probably not, but you never know...

Scientists are now confirming that the suns current reduction in sunspot activity, and prediction lack of sunspots during the next cycle, will cause global cooling. Some have talked of a mini ice age.

Don't believe me, you all know how to google.

Here is just one anyway:

Not by Fire but by Ice - THE NEXT ICE AGE - NOW! (http://www.iceagenow.com/)

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee242/schrodingersduck/mr-freeze.jpg

[RandomGuy]

I knew yahoo was always more credible than NASA.

???

Fail.

"Hill" = one of the scientists studying the phenomenon, not "yahoo".

As for NASA, why don't you point me to what "NASA" says on the subject by pointing to one of the links here in this thread?

(hint: "NASA" didn't say anything about this)

(shrugs)

Do you always talk out your ass or was it just this time?

[Mavillionaire]

2012

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I guess NASA.gov was hacked. <shrugs>

Sorry, Professor Lambeau.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Plus we're talking links here, so......

[MannyIsGod]

So the suns decreasing output is whats causing the warming even though the output is on its way down. :tu

[MannyIsGod]

BTW the forcing from this reduction is likely WAY less than the forcing applied by CO2 and other GH gases. AGW is like a freight train and this isn't enough to stop it, unfortunetly.

[ElNono]

http://www.impawards.com/2002/posters/ice_age.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

More proof that WC is simpleminded. He can only understand duality and anything of further complexities he just ignores.


The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts.

[Wild Cobra]

And Will's statement before Congress in 2003:

http://epw.senate.gov/108th/Soon_072903.htm

Third, there is no convincing evidence from each of the individual climate proxies to suggest that higher temperatures occurred in the 20th century than in the Medieval Warm Period. Nor is there any convincing evidence to suggest that either the rate of increase or the duration of warming during the 20th century were greater than in the Medieval Warm Period.
Try to tell the alarmists things like this.

[spursfan09]

I would welcome global cooling.

[RandomGuy]

I guess NASA.gov was hacked. <shrugs>

Sorry, Professor Lambeau.

Don't get all pissy because you can't put a coherent thought together. It's not my fault.

If you want to be understood, put *some* effort into it.

[boutons_deux]

Wegman scandal rocks cornerstone of climate denial

USA Today: Evidence of plagiarism and complaints about the peer-review process have led a statistics journal to retract a federally funded study that condemned scientific support for global warming

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Hockey-Stick-small.gif

Climate science is a solid edifice built around the work of thousands of scientists, vast amounts of data, and countless peer-reviewed publications. As the National Academy of Sciences report put it, “Although the scientific process is always open to new ideas and results, the fundamental causes and consequences of climate change have been established by many years of scientific research, are supported by many different lines of evidence, and have stood firm in the face of careful examination, repeated testing, and the rigorous evaluation of alternative theories and explanation.”

Climate denial is a house of cards, built around the sleight of hand of a few disinformers, deniers, and pseudo-scientists — who keep repeating the same falsehoods no matter how many times they have been debunked. One of the most important, yet flimsiest, cards holding up the house is the attack on the so-called Hockey Stick research — multiple, independent lines of data and analysis that demonstrate recent global warming is unprecedented in magnitude and speed and cause (see “Two more independent studies back the Hockey Stick and below). Indeed, as WAG notes, within a few decades, nobody is going to be talking about hockey sticks, they will be talking about right angles or hockey skates (see chart above).

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/05/16/208108/wegman-scandal-rocks-cornerstone-of-climate-denial/

[boutons_deux]

Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto equates science with religion


m on May 24, 2011 at 12:30 pm

I suppose it was inevitable that some anti-science extremist would compare the doomsday claims of evangelical broadcaster Harold Camping with the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that says unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions risks multiple simultaneous catastrophes for human civilization.

It’s just sad that this extremist was the editor of The Wall Street Journal‘s online editorial page, James Taranto. His inane, defamatory piece, “The Christian Al Gore: The eternal appeal of doomsday cults,” makes one question the factual basis of every thing that appears in the WSJ. After all, if an astrologer and Flat-Earther can rise to such prominence at the leading financial newspaper in the country, and publish pure anti-science nonsense, then on what basis is there to believe that the rest of the staff is any more rational?

Oh yes, I forgot. There’s an impenetrable firewall between editorial and news at the WSJ. No doubt it’s as impenetrable as the firewall in Wall Street investment banks between the corporate-advisory group and the brokerage department.

Taranto’s money graf is:

To reject traditional religion is not, as the American Atheists might have it, to transform oneself into a perfectly rational being. Nonbelievers are no less susceptible to doomsday cults than believers are; Harold Camping is merely the Christian Al Gore. But because secular doomsday cultism has a scientific gloss, journalists like our friends at Reuters treat it as if it were real science. So, too, do some scientists. It may be that the decline of religion made this corruption of science inevitable.

Yes, because science has a scientific gloss, real journalists treat it as if it were real science. So, too, do some scientists.

Of course Taranto doesn’t actually cite any science in his piece, just two news articles he doesn’t understand:

“Decline in Snowpack Blamed on Warming”–headline, Washington Post, Feb. 1, 2008
“Record Snowpacks Could Threaten Western States”–headline, New York Times, May 22, 2011


http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/05/24/208165/wall-street-journal-james-taranto-equates-science-with-religion/

[RandomGuy]

Wegman scandal rocks cornerstone of climate denial

USA Today: Evidence of plagiarism and complaints about the peer-review process have led a statistics journal to retract a federally funded study that condemned scientific support for global warming

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Hockey-Stick-small.gif

Climate science is a solid edifice built around the work of thousands of scientists, vast amounts of data, and countless peer-reviewed publications. As the National Academy of Sciences report put it, “Although the scientific process is always open to new ideas and results, the fundamental causes and consequences of climate change have been established by many years of scientific research, are supported by many different lines of evidence, and have stood firm in the face of careful examination, repeated testing, and the rigorous evaluation of alternative theories and explanation.”

Climate denial is a house of cards, built around the sleight of hand of a few disinformers, deniers, and pseudo-scientists — who keep repeating the same falsehoods no matter how many times they have been debunked. One of the most important, yet flimsiest, cards holding up the house is the attack on the so-called Hockey Stick research — multiple, independent lines of data and analysis that demonstrate recent global warming is unprecedented in magnitude and speed and cause (see “Two more independent studies back the Hockey Stick and below). Indeed, as WAG notes, within a few decades, nobody is going to be talking about hockey sticks, they will be talking about right angles or hockey skates (see chart above).

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/05/16/208108/wegman-scandal-rocks-cornerstone-of-climate-denial/

Interesting bit.


And one final note, the finding of ‘plagiarism’ may also be an indicator of other possible questionable ethical issues such as conflict-of-interest, haste vs. scientific rigor and bias, which may need to be investigated.

Sounds like this paper belongs in the category "pseudo-science".

Color me unsurprised.

[RandomGuy]

Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto equates science with religion


m on May 24, 2011 at 12:30 pm

I suppose it was inevitable that some anti-science extremist would compare the doomsday claims of evangelical broadcaster Harold Camping with the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that says unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions risks multiple simultaneous catastrophes for human civilization.

It’s just sad that this extremist was the editor of The Wall Street Journal‘s online editorial page, James Taranto. His inane, defamatory piece, “The Christian Al Gore: The eternal appeal of doomsday cults,” makes one question the factual basis of every thing that appears in the WSJ. After all, if an astrologer and Flat-Earther can rise to such prominence at the leading financial newspaper in the country, and publish pure anti-science nonsense, then on what basis is there to believe that the rest of the staff is any more rational?

Oh yes, I forgot. There’s an impenetrable firewall between editorial and news at the WSJ. No doubt it’s as impenetrable as the firewall in Wall Street investment banks between the corporate-advisory group and the brokerage department.

Taranto’s money graf is:

To reject traditional religion is not, as the American Atheists might have it, to transform oneself into a perfectly rational being. Nonbelievers are no less susceptible to doomsday cults than believers are; Harold Camping is merely the Christian Al Gore. But because secular doomsday cultism has a scientific gloss, journalists like our friends at Reuters treat it as if it were real science. So, too, do some scientists. It may be that the decline of religion made this corruption of science inevitable.

Yes, because science has a scientific gloss, real journalists treat it as if it were real science. So, too, do some scientists.

Of course Taranto doesn’t actually cite any science in his piece, just two news articles he doesn’t understand:

“Decline in Snowpack Blamed on Warming”–headline, Washington Post, Feb. 1, 2008
“Record Snowpacks Could Threaten Western States”–headline, New York Times, May 22, 2011


http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/05/24/208165/wall-street-journal-james-taranto-equates-science-with-religion/

That is the joy of op-eds. You can bullshit without having to add meaningful context.


Using data collected over the past 50 years, the scientists confirmed that the mountains are getting more rain and less snow, that the snowpack is breaking up faster and that more rivers are running dry by summer

And of course the second article was simply one year of data.

This is no different than any of the other myriad strawman attacks on the science.

Scientist: "Based on these studies that analyse decades and centuries of data, we conclude that, on average the earth is getting slightly warmer."

Denier op-ed: "Look it snowed today!, That must mean the Earth is not getting warmer"

:rolleyes

Lie, spin, repeat.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Try to tell the alarmists things like this.

Someone does not know how to interpret simple time differentials by looking at a graph.