Grand Solar Minimum: Almost 100% Of Canada Is Still Covered In Snow
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
You can watch this video ...
Climate warming chart absoutely torn apart.. This video show how they trick & lied & misled you . You can see what they did to the global warming chart!!
Pat&Stu took this graph from Obama's Science Adviser, Dr. Holdren, and completely blew it to pieces!
you can learn something from it and share it with your climate alarmist
Your climate alarmist have a chicken little mentality!!
(" The sky is falling run for your life")
I believe in the Grand Solar Mininium..
GLobal warming aka rebranded as climate change theory is in incorrect!!
FUck you Al Gore!!
All you climate alarmist can go to hell for wasting billions of dollars!!
remember the global cooling scares in the 1970s?
This article was written in time magazine June 24, 1974
GLobal warming aka rebranded as climate change theory is in incorrect!!
FUck you Al Gore!!
All you climate alarmist can go to hell for wasting billions of dollars!!
remember the global cooling scares in the 1970s?
This article was written in time magazine June 24, 1974
And the Easter Bunny as well?
This Grand Solar Minimum has resulted in temperatures 0.68 C above the 20th century average so what's going to happen when we're no longer at a minimum?
No such things as Easter Bunny & there is no Santa too! But there are reindeer which exist!! No such things as unicorn.
Earth history has undergone 4 ice age. Climate will always changes! There is no such things as Man made climate change!! Earth temperature will cool and warm and then cool and then warm .. It part of earth nature cycle!
HEre what the scientists said in 1970's about CO2 !
Peer review and publish recognized journal " Science" . GO to any university you can look up this International recognize "Science" journal It saying gobal warming will bring on ice age!!
Here a peer review Science journal in the. 1970's
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate
S. I. Rasool1, S. H. Schneider1
See all authors and affiliations
Science 09 Jul 1971:
Vol. 173, Issue 3992, pp. 138-141
DOI: 10.1126/science.173.3992.138
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138
Abstract
Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.
PS Now we have Al Gore in 1990's saying CO2 will bring global warming melt the ice cap and raises the sea level when the polar ice cap ( south & North Pole melt) now it is rebrand in 2010's as climate change !
http://content.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html
http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html
Monday, Jun. 24, 1974
Another Ice Age?
In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.
As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
(See photos of how scientists are trying to keep Africa's deserts at bay.)
Telltale signs are everywhere — from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.
(See a video on the history of climate change.)
Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds — the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.
See TIME's Pictures of the Week.
Sunspot Cycle.
The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth's tilt and distance from the sun could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemisphere—thereby altering the earth's climate. Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the cycle might be involved.
Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.
(See an infographic on the effects of the changing climate.)
Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).
Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.
(See TIME's video, "This Changing Earth.")
The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries — the U.S., Canada and Australia — global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."
http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html
Monday, Jun. 24, 1974
Another Ice Age?
In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.
As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
(See photos of how scientists are trying to keep Africa's deserts at bay.)
Telltale signs are everywhere — from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.
(See a video on the history of climate change.)
Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds — the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.
See TIME's Pictures of the Week.
Sunspot Cycle.
The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth's tilt and distance from the sun could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemisphere—thereby altering the earth's climate. Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the cycle might be involved.
Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.
(See an infographic on the effects of the changing climate.)
Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).
Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.
(See TIME's video, "This Changing Earth.")
The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries — the U.S., Canada and Australia — global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."
DR ROY SPENCER, PHD Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and US Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite. Recipient (with John Christy) of the Exceptional Scientific Achievement Award from NASA and the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award for his work in satellite-based temperature monitoring. Formerly Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. So, if “we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm) the globe actually got”, how did the IPCC know it’s hotter than it’s been for a thousand years?
On January 27th 2005 Dr Spencer wrote 126 : As you might imagine, it’s a little difficult to construct a temperature history for a period of record that, for the most part, had no reliable thermometer measurements. Since good thermometer measurements extend back to only around the mid-1800s, “proxy” measurements, primarily tree ring data, have been used to extend the temperature record back additional centuries… The claim of unprecedented warmth and the hockey stick shape appear to hinge on the treatment of one species of tree, the bristlecone pine, from North America in the 1400s. Further statistical tests showed that this critical signal in the early 15th century lacked statistical significance. This suggests that the results of Mann et al were simply which greatly exaggerated a characteristic of the bristlecone pines, which may or may not be related to global temperatures.
The original Mann et al article has had huge repercussions. The hockey stick, along with the “warmest in 1,000 years” argument, has become a central theme of debates over the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, in governments around the world. The question begging to be answered is: Why did the IPCC so quickly and uncritically accept the Mann et al hockey stick analysis when it first appeared? I cannot help but conclude that it’s because they wanted to believe it.
Dr Spencer pointed out what should have been obvious that the hockey stick had never been subjected to one of the most basic tests of science: Unusual claims in science should be met with unusual skepticism, and this did not happen with the Mann et al study.
An increasing number of researchers have anecdotal evidence that the science tabloids, Nature and Science , select reviewers of some manuscripts based upon whether they want those papers to be accepted or rejected. In other words, it seems like the conclusions of a paper are sometimes more important that the scientific basis for those conclusions. Since those periodicals have profit and popularity motives that normal scientific journals do not, maybe the time has come to downgrade the scientific weight of publications in those journals, at least for some purposes… It will be interesting to see if the IPCC, and its member countries, continue to rally around the hockey stick, or discard it.
Why did the IPCC so quickly and uncritically accept the hockey stick..? Because they wanted to believe it.”
PROFESSOR WILLIAM HAPPER, P Professor of Physics at Princeton University and a member of the US Government’s group of independent scientific advisors JASON, for whom he pioneered the development of adaptive optics. Recipient of the Davisson-Germer Prize in Atomic or Surface Physics, the Herbert P Broida Prize, and a Thomas Alva Edison patent award. Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
This is what Professor William Happer, PH.D. said " The whole hockey-stick episode reminds me motto of Orwell's Ministry of Information in novel 1984.
On February 25th 2009, Professor Happer testified before the US Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee : The existence of climate variability in the past has long been an embarrassment to those who claim that all climate change is due to man and that man can control it. When I was a schoolboy, my textbooks on earth science showed a prominent “Medieval Warm Period” at the time the Vikings settled Greenland, followed by a vicious “Little Ice Age” that drove them out. So I was very surprised when I first saw the celebrated “hockey stick curve,” in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC.
I could hardly believe my eyes. Both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were gone, and the newly revised temperature of the world since the year 1000 had suddenly become absolutely flat until the last hundred years when it shot up like the blade on a hockey stick… The hockey stick was trumpeted around the world as evidence that the end was near. The hockey stick has nothing to do with reality but was the result of incorrect handling of proxy temperature records and incorrect statistical analysis.
There really was a Little Ice Age and there really was a Medieval Warm Period that was as warm or warmer than today. I bring up the hockey stick as a particularly clear example that the IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are not dispassionate statements of the facts…
The whole hockey-stick episode reminds me of the motto of Orwell’s Ministry of Information in the novel 1984 : “He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future.” In 2011, Will Happer expanded his thoughts on “controlling the past” : This damnatia memoriae of inconvenient facts was simply expunged from the 2001 IPCC report, much as Trotsky and Yezhov were removed from Stalin’s photographs by dark-room specialists in the later years of the dictator’s reign. There was no explanation of why both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, very clearly shown in the 1990 report, had simply disappeared eleven years later.
The IPCC and its worshipful supporters did their best to promote the hockey-stick temperature curve. But as John Adams remarked, “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Maybe not. But the hockey stick certainly took “facts and evidence” on a wild ride. In order to control the future, the IPCC had to take control of the past and Mann’s graph was their way to do that.
“The ‘hockey stick’… was at best bad science.” DR LEE C GERHARD, PHD Principal geologist of the Kansas Geological Survey. Senior editor of Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change (2001). Former state geologist of North Dakota and honorary member of the Association of American State Geologists. Former co-chair of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Climate Change Issues Committee. In 2009, Dr Gerhard wrote 54 : Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO) was real and that the “hockey stick” graphic that attempted to deny that fact was at best bad science.
The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th century. During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and fallen, including the present cooling. All the changes in temperature of the last 100 years are in normal historic ranges , both in absolute value and, most importantly, rate of change. That would have been an uncontentious statement in the pre-Mann era. But his hockey stick singlehandedly overthrew the ancien régime .
Before Mann, the late Hubert Lamb was regarded by many as the greatest climatologist of the 20th century. He was the founder of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, and the scientist whose chart (showing the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age) had appeared in the very first IPCC report in 1990. In 2011, Professor Tony Brown (of whom more over the page) contrasted the differing views of climate variability of Lamb and Mann 55 :
So we have two competing climate history stories one developed over a lifetime of academic research mostly before the computer era, and the other derived from a scientist using modern statistical techniques and the extensive use of novel proxies interpreted in a highly sophisticated manner using computers. The “hockey stick” and Lamb’s graph remain potent symbols to this day, and have created two vociferous climate camps, as the reconstructions seem to tell very different stories… In the Mann version of historic climate there is very limited variation either side of a mean anomaly, which gave rise to a limited MWP, generally substantially cooler than today, with gently declining temperatures throughout the period from 1400 to 1900, coupled with a lesser impact of the “Little Ice Age” than had previously been accepted.
Most controversial of all is the very dramatic uptick from the 1902 instrumental temperature records… The important and influential part of Mann’s hockey stick is not the blade (very few people dispute that it’s warmer now than 200 years ago) but the shaft. In abolishing the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, Dr Mann wound up abolishing the very concept of “natural climate variability” to the point where all his rube celebrity pals believe there was a millennium-long stable climate until industrial, consumerist humans came along and broiled the planet. They believe that because that’s what the hockey stick told them.
*The science and politics of climate change Ian Plimer
We derive scientific evidence from measurement, observation, and experiment. Evidence must be repeatable and collected over and over again.
Computers do not generate evidence: they analyse evidence that should have been repeated and validated. On the basis of the evidence and analysis of evidence, an explanation is given. This explanation is a scientific theory and must be in accord with other validated evidence from diverse sources (this is known as the coherence criterion in science).
Unlike in law, there is no inadmissible evidence in science. Science is underpinned by practitioners who must be sceptical of the methodology used to collect evidence, the analysis of evidence, and the conclusions based on the evidence. On the basis of new evidence, scientists must always be prepared to change their opinions. Science bows to no authority, is not based on a consensus, and is in a constant state of flux.
No great advance in science has been made by consensus: advances have been made by individuals paddling upstream. If a scientific theory is not in accord with validated evidence, then the theory must be abandoned and reconstructed. It is scepticism that underpins science, not the comfort of consensus.
The theory of human-induced global warming is not science because research is based on a pre-ordained conclusion, huge bodies of evidence are ignored, and the analytical procedures are treated as evidence. Furthermore, climate ‘science’ is sustained by government research grants.
Funds are not available to investigate theories that are not in accord with government ideology. Many Western governments have a politically popular ideology that argues that:
i. There is an increase in emissions of carbon dioxide ( CO 2 ) by human activities;
ii. The increased CO 2 , a greenhouse gas, will lead to ever increasing global warming;
iii. There will be tipping points, sea level rises, extinctions and ocean acidification;
iv. Climate change will be irreversible and that human emissions of CO 2 must be reduced or stopped as soon as possible; and
v. In order to stop climate change, energy sources need to be shifted from coal, gas and oil to wind, solar, tidal and biomass.
i. There is an increase in emissions of carbon dioxide by human activities Point (i) is correct. These emissions derive mainly from the developing world and the understandable desire of its people to reach the same standard of living as the Western middle class. It was coal in the Industrial Revolution that originally led to the rise of the middle class in the West.
Now the new industrial revolution in China, India and East Asia is causing the largest migration of humans that has ever occurred, the rise of the middle class in these nations, and the use of steel and electricity, both of which derive from coal. The very slight increase in atmospheric CO 2 has led to a slight greening of the planet. As all farmers know, CO 2 is plant food and the emission of increasingly large amounts of CO 2 by humans is good for life on Earth.
ii. The increased carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, will lead to ever increasing global warming Point (ii) has shown to be invalid on all time scales. There is no doubt that CO 2 is a greenhouse gas. However, the main greenhouse gas is water vapour. The first 100 parts per million (ppm) of CO 2 have a significant effect on atmospheric temperature, whereas any increase from the current 400 ppm will have an insignificant effect. Furthermore, because CO 2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere, it is naturally sequestered into the oceans, life, or rocks in less than a decade. In fact, only one molecule of every 85,000 in the atmosphere is CO 2 of human origin, and yet we are asked to believe that this one molecule drives hugely complex climate change systems. We are also asked to believe that the 32 molecules of CO 2 of natural origin in every 85,000 molecules play no part in driving climate change. Despite a significant increase in industrial emissions of CO 2 , there has been no increase in global atmospheric temperature over the past seventeen years.
This shows that the theory that CO 2 emissions of human origin drive global warming (and climate change) must be rejected. But this rejection has not yet taken place. In ice core measurements, the
evidence shows that temperature increase occurs hundreds to thousands of years before there is an increase in atmospheric CO 2 .
This again shows that atmospheric CO 2 does not drive atmospheric temperature change. On yet another scale, geology shows that all six of the great ice ages were initiated when atmospheric CO 2 was far higher than at present and, with the first two great ice ages, up to a thousand times higher than the current atmospheric CO 2 content. Furthermore, geology shows that there has been sequestration of atmospheric CO 2 into limey sediments, other rocks and life for 2,500 million years. This process continues.
The Earth currently has a very low CO 2 content compared with the past. We actually live in a cold epoch. Ice is a rare rock and has been on Earth for less than twenty per cent of its history. For most of time, planet Earth has been warmer and wetter. In the past, ecosystems thrived when there was a high atmospheric carbon dioxide content—especially if it was warm. This is known by horticulturalists. They pump warm CO 2 into glass houses. The optimum CO 2 content is more than 1,600 ppm (as compared with the current atmospheric content of 400 ppm).
History shows that communities thrived when it was warm and there was massive depopulation during cooler times. It is only recently—when Westerners have been very affluent—that people have feared the warmth. In former times, communities feared the cold.
Last edited:
3 Kooks.
Nicely done.
Kinda proves the 97% consensus claims, doesn't it?
I mean if you can only find three, non-climatoligists as your sources it really proves the consensus claims well.
Nicely done.
Kinda proves the 97% consensus claims, doesn't it?
I mean if you can only find three, non-climatoligists as your sources it really proves the consensus claims well.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b02388
'
SCIENCE
Massive GLOBAL COOLING process discovered as Paris climate deal looms
'Could explain recent disagreements'
30 Sep 2015 at 11:28, Lewis Page
As world leaders get ready to head to Paris for the latest pact on cutting CO2 emissions, it has emerged that there isn't as much urgency about the matter as had been thought.
A team of top-level atmospheric chemistry boffins from France and Germany say they have identified a new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted into the atmosphere from the sea - a process which was unknown until now, meaning that existing climate models do not take account of it.
The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assmilate.
In essence, the new research shows that a key VOC, isoprene, is not only produced by living organisms (for instance plants and trees on land and plankton in the sea) as had previously been assumed. It is also produced in the "microlayer" at the top of the ocean by the action of sunlight on floating chemicals - no life being necessary. And it is produced in this way in very large amounts.
According to an announcement just issued by the German government's Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research:
Atmospheric chemists from France and Germany, however, can now show that isoprene can also be formed without biological sources in the surface film of the oceans by sunlight and so explain the large discrepancy between field measurements and models. The new identified photochemical reaction is therefore important to improve the climate models.
Global models at the moment assume total emissions of isoprene from all sources - trees, plants, plankton, the lot - of around 1.9 megatons per year. But, according to the new research, the newly discovered "abiotic" process releases as much as 3.5 megatons on its own - which "could explain the recent disagreements" between models and reality.
"We were able for the first time to trace back the production of this important aerosol precursor to abiotic sources. So far global calculations consider only biological sources," explains Dr Christian George from French lab the Institute of Catalysis and Environment, in Lyon.
VOCs such as isoprene are known to be a powerful factor in the climate, as they cause the formation of aerosol particles. Some kinds of aerosol, for instance black soot, warm the world up: but the ones resulting from VOCs actually cool it down substantially by acting as nuclei for the formation of clouds. It has previously been suggested that production of VOCs by pine forests could be a negative feedback so powerful that it "limits climate change from reaching such levels that it could become really a problem in the world."
With the discovery of the new abiotic sea process, the idea that cutting carbon emissions may not be all that urgent is looking stronger. That's probably good news, as it has emerged lately that efforts to cut carbon emissions to date are having the unfortunate side effect of poisoning us all.
The new research is published here courtesy of the learned journal Environmental Science and Technology, and as the Leibniz Institute notes: "Because of the great importance this paper will be open access".
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b02388
Written by a climate scientist on science journal
Peer review and publish recognized journal " Science" . GO to any university you can look up this International recognize "Science" journal ! saying gobal warming will bring on ice age!!
Here a peer review Science journal in the 70's
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate
S. I. Rasool1, S. H. Schneider1
See all authors and affiliations
Science 09 Jul 1971:
Vol. 173, Issue 3992, pp. 138-141
DOI: 10.1126/science.173.3992.138
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138
Abstract
Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.
Below article written in time magazine.
This article was written in time magazine June 24, 1974
PS. In 1970's we had climate scientists says increases CO2 will causes an ice age!
PPS in 1990s we had climate scientists says increase CO2 will melt the ice cap ( cause raises in sea level)
In 2000's they rebranded global warming to climate change . So when temperature drop they blame CO2 due to extreme weather and when temperate go up they blame CO2. This is so fuck up!!
https://content.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601770131,00.html
TIME MAGAZINE COVER CALLED THE BIG FREEZE
January 31, 1977 | Vol. 109 No. 5
Previous Issue
Next Issue
TIME MAGAZINE COVER CALLED THE BIG FREEZE
January 31, 1977 | Vol. 109 No. 5
Previous Issue
Next Issue
Of course it does. The problem is we haven't had billions of humans trying to survive before.
Sorry but I'll take the word of scientists who clearly disagree with you (but who needs science).
Despite the news coverage from places like Time trying to sell copy, there was never a real scientific belief that an ice age was coming (and your peer reviewed article is NOT saying an ice age was imminent and was focused mainly on aerosols, not CO2).
p.s. Even if your interpretation of that article was correct, it would explicitly mean there was man made climate change.
p.p.s. I noticed you didn't bother answering my question. If this "grand minimum" has resulted in temps slightly dipped from their historic highs butwell above the 20th century average, what will happen once the minimum is over and we're back to normal?
