The Coming New Little Ice Age

Here are five facts that contradict the hysteria of a manmade global warming catastrophe.

https://fee.org/articles/5-surprising-scientific-facts-about-earth-s-climate/?utm_campaign=FEE Daily&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=76494542&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8YcxyXM0Q4gJok_PS81Q9F3RlUzXlkVwZvNd6ld9PIZ9xHoVraBvYZN5c6x2W1YI3w5DOj0YeaQQVxyDxlZh6jBAYS6Q&_hsmi=76494542



Refute them. Go Ahead. Make my “ice age”.

 

The first 2 "facts" are true but irrelevant to whether or not there is man made global warming that could result in a catastrophe. The other 3 "facts" are false.

1.) Climate doesn't change very much unless there is some external "climate forcing" to cause the change.

2.) Global temperatures in the first century and during the 10th century were not as warm then they have been during the last 50 years..Those past warming periods were not globally synchronized phenomenons.

3.)The Arctic and the Antarctic are not doing better than ever.
The 2 paragraphs below are from realclimate.org "The Antarctic ice sheet is melting and it probably is our fault"

"There’s been a nearly continuous stream of evidence supporting the view that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is in serious trouble – perhaps already undergoing the beginning of “collapse”, which John Mercer presaged more than four decades ago."
"The key finding is that we now have evidence that the increasing loss of ice from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is a result of human activities — rising greenhouse gas concentrations in particular. Now, some may be surprised to learn that this wasn’t already known. But the argument that humans are responsible has rested largely on the grounds that there must be a connection. After all, why should melting have increased only in the late 20th century, precisely when the impacts of anthropogenic climate change were becoming more and more apparent? It seems an unlikely coincidence." (realclimate.org)

Arctic sea ice has been declining rapidly during the past 50 years and the IPCC
is projecting that all summer Arctic sea ice will be gone by 2050.

4.)
The scientific consensus in the 2014 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report is that:

A large fraction of both terrestrial and freshwater species faces increased extinction risk under projected climate change during and beyond the 21st century, especially as climate change interacts with other stressors, such as habitat modification, over-exploitation, pollution, and invasive species (high confidence). Extinction risk is increased under all RCP scenarios, with risk increasing with both magnitude and rate of climate change. Many species will be unable to track suitable climates under mid- and high-range rates of climate change (i.e., RCP4.5, 6.0, and 8.5) during the 21st century (medium confidence). Lower rates of change (i.e., RCP2.6) will pose fewer problems.

— IPCC, 2014


5.) Carbon dioxide is the principle control knob and that is evident from paleoclimate studies and during recent decades. In fact. there is an article in Science magazine that explains it.
Abstract:
"Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state." (from Science magazine)

There was no global warming pause during the 2000-2016 time frame. Ocean energy storage continued unabated during that time and 92% of the earth's energy imbalance ends up in the oceans.

The IPCC did report that some extreme events like flooding and more powerful cyclones had occurred as the result of climate change and the IPCC projects with high confidence that
extreme weather events will occur in the future.

 

Well, we have a disagreement, don't we? But one of us wants to get the government's gun and force the rest of us to commit economic suicide. Shame on the Apocalyptics for their apoplectic response to doomsday delusions.

 

What does high confidence mean in terms of statistics ???

The IPCC has not provided any data to show that more flooding and more powerful hurricanes have occurred due to global warming.

Water vapor is the most “powerful” greenhouse gas.

Name one species that has gone extinct due to the current global warming.

Arctic sea ice is at the same level as in the early 20th century.

 

I am just responding to scientifically inaccurate statements by your OP. The politics of what to do about it was not in the OP. However, the writer of that article is a member of the Cornwell Alliance. It is discussed at Wikipedia below. How do you feel about siding with a group that mixes religion with science?

On December 2, 2009, the Cornwall Alliance issued a statement called "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming", in which they declare in list form both "What We Believe" and "What We Deny". The first point from each list is;

We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.[

 

Source is so suspect that I won’t waste my time

 

Well weather an arson yells fire or a priest does, if your house is on fire, it’s on fire, no matter what.

Now, I get you’re an altruistic collectivist mystical Progressive, and you view pro-science, pro-reason, pro-individualism, pro-capitalism journalism too moralistic, but damn, data’s data, facts are facts, and reality is real. So...

Climate is changing, but it won’t be a manmade runaway greenhouse catastrophe caused by me driving the grandchildren in my air conditioned fossil fuel car to Disney World. Indeed, it will be a natural cyclical cooling off, until the next warm up; and more, this much is climatically true, it changes all the time, with or without human activity.

 

What a pathetic response

Do you realise there are level of scientific evidence? Show me a paper that is a systematic review of the literature I will read it

I don’t waste time on blogs and opinion pieces be I do not even begin to bother with AstroTurf sites

 

Hyperbole

 

Threads like this just serve to validate AGW. When the crazies are all on the other side, it shows the lack of evidence for their position.

 

As stated before, facts are facts, whatever the source.

Fact 1. Climate changes, always has and always will, whether we exist or not, or whether we like it or not. We can no more avert the next mini ice age than we can alter the number of stars in the sky. Doesn’t matter if I say it, no one says, or a five year old says it, the climate changes, all the time.

Fact 2. The earth’s climate has warmed and cool before capitalism, industrialization, automobiles, or carbon fuels. That's not religious fanaticism, it's fact based in geology. And it used to be taught in 5th grade science. Makes one wonder if school is still a place for gaining knowledge, or has it become an exercise in political indoctrination whose soul purpose is to murder independent minds so that the political elites can grow their power?

Fact 3. There was no indication of ice-shelf presence during the early to mid-Holocene, and multiple lines of evidence suggest gradual early Holocene ice retreat in Disraeli Fiord in response to the
warm temperatures recorded in nearby ice cores--https://www.researchgate.net/public...ne_dynamics_of_the_Arctic's_largest_ice_shelf




That’s science research.

Now, I could continue with the other two, but it’s not necessary. Your goal is not the flourishing of knowledge so that human beings can flourish, your goal is the annihilation of the human race. Just like the cretins that banned DDT.

 

The World is Ending: I'm Not Holding My Breath


https://fee.org/articles/4-catastro...lmQjzlJZwX5cGPMs3avedkKCDFHUoQ&_hsmi=76536025

 

We can avert the next ice age. Ice ages are caused by very small reductions in incident solar radiation (insolation) on the earth associated with Milankovitch cycles. All we have to do is add a greenhouse gas,

a chlorofluorocarbon for example, to the atmosphere to neutralize the change in insolation. We have already postponed the next ice age for perhaps a thousand years.

Why is it so hard for you to accept the idea that humans are changing the climate? The idea that humans could warm the planet and maybe prevent an ice age was first proposed in the 19th century.

What aspect of climate science is wrong?

 

There is no proof that humans are changing the climate.

 

If the OP is correct, then the new ice age is not getting here fast enough.

 

Just a little update on the inevitable climate warming catastrophe—it ain’t happening.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...ot-catastrophic-and-actually-has-benefits.amp

 

I would like to correct my previous post on how humans could prevent another ice age and how we have postponed the next ice age. We won't have to do anything to prevent another ice age

from occurring in the next 100,000 years according to an article published in Nature magazine and discussed in the Guardian, "Fossil fuel burning 'postponing next ice age', ".

Letter | Published: 13 January 2016 (From Nature magazine)

Critical insolation–CO2 relation for diagnosing past and future glacial inception
The missed inception can be accounted for by the
combined effect of relatively high late-Holocene CO2 concentrations and the low orbital eccentricity of the Earth7. Additionally, our analysis suggests that even in the absence of human perturbations no substantial build-up of ice sheets would occur within the next several thousand years and that the current interglacial would probably last for another 50,000 years. However, moderate anthropogenic cumulative CO2 emissions of 1,000 to 1,500 gigatonnes of carbon will postpone the next glacial inception by at least 100,000 years8,9


The information below , 2 paragraphs plus graphs, are from Yaleclimateconnections.org "Common Climate Misconceptions: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" They are writing about the anthropogenic pulse

of carbon dioxide emitted since the industrial revolution.

Using a combination of various methods, researchers have estimated that about 50 percent of the net anthropogenic pulse would be absorbed in the first 50 years, and about 70 percent in the first 100 years. Absorption by sinks slows dramatically after that, with an additional 10 percent or so being removed after 300 years and the remaining 20 percent lasting tens if not hundreds of thousands of years before being removed.

As University of Washington scientist David Archer explains, this “long tail” of absorption means that the mean lifetime of the pulse attributable to anthropogenic emissions is around 30,000 to 35,000 years.




From the Guardian
The new research also shows that a major ice age was narrowly missed just before the industrial revolution, probably because the development of agriculture had nudged the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere just above the tipping point.

“The bottom line is we are basically skipping a whole glacial cycle, which is unprecedented,” said Andrey Ganopolski, at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany and who led the research. “It is mind-boggling that humankind is able to interfere with a mechanism that shaped the world as we know it.”

 

It might happen if humans don't greatly reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the next couple of decades. It is true that some small increase in greenhouse gases since the 18th century have

been beneficial, but the current situation is destabilizing Greenland and Antarctica..

 

Deniers have been predicting a "New Ice Age" since the 1970s.
Any day now.

 

Hell, that’s nothing, doomsayers have been preaching the end of world since man first walked.

Earth has Ice ages, glaciers grow and expand; then it warms, glaciers shrink and retreat. Without or without Human activity.

Makes one wonder how long it will take for the doomsayer’s hatred of the creative to start them btchn about space exploration—how Man is altering and disrupting the orbital paths of planets by firing rockets in space.

It will happen.

 

No it won't.

 

Good luck—You’re going against millions and millions of geological evidence. Of course, one can hope that the climate warming doomsayers are correct and man’s creativity will forestall, if not prevent, another ice age by keeping the planet warm, But that’s very wishful thinking. The nice thing about the next ice age is that it’s not due for another hundred years. By that time, the power of Man’s creative mind will be creating planets, colonizing space, and achieving immortality.

 

Nice dodge, but I was referring to the below claim not happening.

 

Typo: 100,000 years not 100

 

Really? Straws are being banned to save whales least they perish and cause the extinction of the human race. Bizarre, to say the least, but yet as real as teaching children they can change their gender, though biologically they can’t.

“It’s a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack.