mini ice age could be on the way and it’s going to get very, very cold

It's summer on the other side of the planet? What other side? Wouldn't everyone just fall off? Seriously though does it not occur to you that a cooling sun at the same time as record cold weather might just might be worth noting? As I have said I hope not! I'm rooting for global warming myself. Go sundogs!

 

I think all these meteorologist and climatologists suddenly bestowing upon themselves the rank of scientist is a bit suspect in and of itself. That is them playing to the masses I spoke of earlier trying to elevate themselves to a higher position than they actually occupy. Kind of like a dentist calling himself a doctor. Technically yeah I guess but in reality not really.

 

Hmm... well that seems to have struck a nerve. And usually, it indicates the veracity of the case. Science is a hoax? I suppose it depends on who you're talking to. Clearly, hoaxes have been attributable to scientific claims, or claims about science that have been fundamentally wrong... right?

So here's the thing. We have evidence that CO2 mapping is questionable. Not that you can't at least get some value from it, but that it doesn't effectively always represent the actual levels in the atmosphere in ice cores. That the ice doesn't continue to retain all of it's soluable CO2 over time, we know this. That makes the underlying factual basis of your 11K year claim, well, difficult then to both quantify and qualify. The trick is it never over play the veracity of your data. It is an entirely different thing to suggest that over time, you have indications that might lead one to conclude vs saying (like you do and have) that you know a thing as an absolute level of certainty that, well clearly you don't, and more importantly, cannot. What you believe in is statistical certainty. And that's unfortunate. It's the difference between could and should. I understand that you are determined to substituted these so that could become should and more that it is. But, that isn't in the offing here. Simple as that.

When science comes out finally with a formula that is repeatable, that is verifiable, that is science. Until then, it's speculation.

 

Are you actually serious?

I am familiar with the sunspot cycle and the talk of solar cooling but also know the very limited effects the reality creates....still, it is noted.

 

Glad it's noted and we agree that it's not a good scenario and hopefully not a likely one. This is an area where those that know more than us disagree with eachother though so time will tell.

 

It's summer (or at least approaching summer) in the southern hemisphere. But, I don't think that's what tecoyah was referring to. He's saying that the United States is but one small subset of the entire Earth or even just the northern hemisphere. Just because it's below average here doesn't mean it isn't above average other there. In fact, that's what's happening as I type. That is the average over the entire northern hemisphere is above average right now despite it being below average in a smaller regional area.

Consider the following illustration. I have a square divided into 4 smaller squares. Notice how the mean over the entire square is (1 + 1 + 1 - 2) / 4 = +0.25C despite square-D being really cold at -2C. Again, notice that square-D is 2x colder than the other squares are warm and is 8x colder than the whole thing is warm. Again, the entire area is above average despite a region (square-D) within the larger square being dramatically colder.

Code:

---------------------
-A        -B        -
-   +1C   -   +1C   -
-         -         -
---------------------
-C        -D        -
-   +1C   -   -2C   -
-         -         -
---------------------

Obviously the Earth isn't a square. It's a sphere, but the principal is no different. You can divide the Earth into any number of equally spaced cells. The temperature in these cells ebbs and flows with the weather over time, but overall and when viewed over long periods of time the mean temperature of all cells is broadly higher despite individual cells being dramatically colder at different moments in time. In fact, one prediction of current climate change theory is that the standard deviation in the temperature of the individual cells will increase. That means the temperatures (and by extension other properties of weather) will be more varied overall. And as demonstrated above with a simpler and easier picture you can see that this all happens with the whole thing being broadly warmer overall.

 

Your strategy here is what is used by other merchants of doubt regarding other issues. You're trying to say that because the data has error margins on it and is not 100% perfect it can't be used to draw conclusions of any kind. That's completely wrong. We aren't talking about error margins of hundreds of ppm over the holocene. We are talking about error margins of a few ppm at most. And everyone who performs these ice core, tree ring, sediment analysis, and other proxy data experiments gets roughly the same result. It is repeatable. Again, no one is saying the data is perfect. But there's a big difference between being perfect and being constrained within a narrow range that make it possible to draw definitive conclusions.

Anyway, if you have evidence that the CO2 concentrations were not locked into a narrow range of 260-280 ppm for most of the holocene then lay your cards on the table and show us what you have. If you really think CO2 concentrations have risen by 2 ppm/yr for prolonged periods of time yielding a 120+ ppm change over the course of a century during the holocene (this interglacial period) then you must present something to support that claim otherwise it's just speculation based nothing more than faith or a gut feeling. In other words, you can't claim that CO2 concentrations were 400 ppm within the last 11k years and expect people to believe you unless have something to show them. Then if you want to be convincing you need to present an equally amount of evidence refuting the consensus as compared to what already exists that supports it.

 

Actually "Those That Know More Than Us" do not disagree but some unique individuals have created a stir.
There are a few interesting things that indicate a cooling troposphere but that will not cause an Ice Age. Relax....you need not worry, about the cold.

 

As has been the trend since the last ice age ended. Remember though we already and recently had a mini ice age and it's not out of the question that we could suffer another one

 

Oh yeah I forgot. Man is warming the climate and that's "settled science". Lol

 

Nope....there are few things that can be considered "Settled Science" which is why the term is not used by scientists. Instead the use of consensus and extensive peer review of research allow for verification of hypothesis/theory allowing people like me to be informed and develop opinion. Sarcastic one liners do not actually further debate and in fact diminish it.

 

Settled science or the scientific concensus, a distinction without a difference. Potatoe potato.

 

The difference being that "Settled Science" is terminology used by laypersons and "Consensus" is the term and process used by scientists and scholars to further knowledge en mass.

 

As I said a distinction without a difference

 

I suppose that you do not see the difference goes far in explaining why we do not agree on this issue. My opinion is based on research whereas yours seems to be a conglomeration of talking points and internet blogs.

I now understand why you are worried.

 

They are beholden to the whims of the bureaucrats that compose our corporatistic ruling class, and provide the funding that keeps food on their tables

 

Does your research say scientist agree on exactly what caused the last LIA and exactly why it ended? Mine is rather vague in that area and some scientist wonder if it ended at all or if we are just in a lull period of it and current warming is mostly natural.

"Is the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”?
A possible cause of global warming
Syun-Ichi Akasofu
International Arctic Research Center
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Abstract
There seems to be a roughly linear increase of the temperature from about 1800, or even much earlier, to
the present. This warming trend is likely to be a natural change; a rapid increase of CO2 began in about
1940. This trend should be subtracted from the temperature data during the last 100 years. Thus, there is a
possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend may be attributed to the greenhouse effect
resulting from human activities. This conclusion is contrary to the IPCC (2007) Report, which states that
“most” of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. One possible cause of the linear increase
may be that the Earth is still recovering from the Little Ice Age. It is urgent that natural changes be
correctly identified and removed accurately from the presently on-going changes in order to find the
contribution of the greenhouse effect.
1. Introduction
There are many documents that suggest that the period between 1500 and 1900 was relatively
cool, at least in Europe; the River Thames was frequently frozen in 1676 and in the later part of
the 17th century (Lamb, 1982). Stories of the exploration of the Northwest Passage also hint that
sea ice conditions in northern Canada in the latter part of the 1800s were much worse than
conditions today. It is now possible to cruise the passage without much assistance by icebreakers.
Although there is some doubt about the exact timing of the “Little Ice Age,” it is possible to infer
that the period between 1500 and 1900 was relatively cool in many parts of the world, including
Alaska (cf. Lamb, 1982; Gribbin (ed.), 1978; Crowley and North, 1991; Burroughs, 2001;
Serreze and Barry, 2005).
Climate change during the last 100 years or so has been intensely discussed over the last few
decades. However, it is important to recognize that as far as the basic global warming data for
this period are concerned, all we have is what is illustrated in the top of the diagram of Figure 1.
The IPCC Reports state that the global average temperature increased about 0.6°C (~1°F) during
the last 100 years. Their interpretation may be illustrated in the second diagram of Figure 1.
Certainly, both the temperature and the amount of CO2 in the air have increased during the last
100 years or so. Further, it is well known that CO2 causes the greenhouse effect; therefore, it is
natural to hypothesize that CO2 is a cause of the present warming trend.
However, there is so far no definitive proof that “most” of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect."


Summary
From the data provided in the earlier sections, it is quite obvious that the temperature change
during the last 100 years or so includes significant natural changes, both the linear change and
fluctuations. It is very puzzling that the IPCC Reports state that it is mostly due to the
greenhouse effect Radiative and other forcings are considered to explain the present warming of
0.6°C/100 years, so that they cannot be a confirmation of the term “most.” Further,
unfortunately, computers are already incorrectly “taught” that the 0.6°C rise during the last
hundred years was caused by the greenhouse effect, so they cannot prove the greenhouse effect
and cannot predict accurately the degree of future warming.
It is suggested here that the linear change may be due to the fact that the Earth is slowly
recovering from the Little Ice Age, although the cause of the Little Ice Age is unknown at the
present time.
It is urgent that natural changes should be correctly identified and removed accurately from the
present on-going changes in order to find the contribution of the greenhouse effect. Only then
will an accurate prediction of future temperature changes become possible.
One lesson here is that it is not possible to study climate change without long-term data. This is
understandable from the fact that it is not possible to draw the linear line in the fourth diagram of
Figure 1 without the data shown in Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. It is very easy to discredit the
results of the traditional climate change studies (Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7) in terms of accuracy.
However, this is what climatologists must face. In some sense, inaccurate data during the last
few hundred years are more important than accurate satellite data after 1970 in our study of
global warming. Unfortunately, at this time, many studies are focused on climate change after
1975, because satellite data have become readily available. A study of climate change based on satellite data which is "instant climatology".

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...WMAh6BAgAEAE&usg=AOvVaw3UMGoKU-LytCT34MwQBNTq

 

You clearly do not understand science funding or how the multiple fields are influenced. Most scientific research is funded by government grants ( the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, etc.), companies doing research and development, and non-profit foundations rather than a grand conspiracy to manipulate you into believing their "Fake News".

 

Yes.
Dependency upon government to put food on their tables, owned by government and the whims of the corporatists that control it

 

Though no consensus has ever been truly reached because of the many theories and complexities as well as limited data sets, my personal belief is the most recent "Ice Age" or global cooling event was the result of volcanism and primarily a regional event in the grand scheme and did not so much end as become limited in scope by atmosphere and ocean current changes. As far as these changes being "Natural" I believe that when massive amounts of ancient sunlight (carbon) are introduced to our climate system there will be inevitable resulting changes.

 

Have A Nice Day

 

If you downloaded the link I gave you it's impossible to stick with your previous statement of concensus-settled science and to stick with your earlier comments that we know what caused the LIA. Only question is did you read it!

 

I do not believe I made the statements you attribute to me as neither of them sound like my beliefs or style of commentary. Please provide the data that shows me wrong in this.

 

Thanks.
Happy Thanksgiving

 

If you don't think AGW is concensus-settled science and if you don't believe we know what caused the LIA we have nothing to debate. Welcome to my side.