Leading Ipcc Scientist Now Calling For Mini Ice Age

[Guest Sundancefisher]

It is true.

 

One of the UN's IPCC leading climatologists is calling for a mini ice age...based upon NEW DATA...

 

Ha ha ha. This is too funny.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/11/...ing-scientists/

 

We are all going to freeze to death...long before we get too hot maybe

[canadensis]

So now I suppose to negate this we should burn more fossil fuels to crank up the greenhouse effect?

 

This really shows what a bunch of boobs some of the climate change scientists are. Last year our own Canadian meteorological service was so far off on their weather forecasting that they admitted that guessing "chance", using no data or models would have been no less accurate.

 

Jump forward to the global warming scientist who is predicting the earth wasting away from all the heat that our actions are causing the climate. Why would these guys be any more accurate than a weatherman?

 

It is the weather folks, it has cycles just like all things in nature. There are just some things that us humans have no control over, and the weather is definately one of those things.

 

It is a sad statement on human nature how we feed and somewhat thrive on sensationalized news. What is unknown could eventually kill us, or really screw up our lives; or so that is how it is reported. Y2K, H1N1, Terrorists, Global Warming, and now a mini ice age. When you examine the "facts" on the crisis of the moment that we seem to rally behind you see that there is not enough statistical data to show that it will have any effect on 99.999% of the population, yet we follow like sheep.

 

An interesting study would be to study and document how much money we have globally pissed away on Climate Change Studies?

[Guest Sundancefisher]

So now I suppose to negate this we should burn more fossil fuels to crank up the greenhouse effect?

 

This really shows what a bunch of boobs some of the climate change scientists are. Last year our own Canadian meteorological service was so far off on their weather forecasting that they admitted that guessing "chance", using no data or models would have been no less accurate.

 

Jump forward to the global warming scientist who is predicting the earth wasting away from all the heat that our actions are causing the climate. Why would these guys be any more accurate than a weatherman?

 

It is the weather folks, it has cycles just like all things in nature. There are just some things that us humans have no control over, and the weather is definately one of those things.

 

It is a sad statement on human nature how we feed and somewhat thrive on sensationalized news. What is unknown could eventually kill us, or really screw up our lives; or so that is how it is reported. Y2K, H1N1, Terrorists, Global Warming, and now a mini ice age. When you examine the "facts" on the crisis of the moment that we seem to rally behind you see that there is not enough statistical data to show that it will have any effect on 99.999% of the population, yet we follow like sheep.

 

An interesting study would be to study and document how much money we have globally pissed away on Climate Change Studies?

 

Actually I think it is deeper and more thought out than that.

 

Clearly we have cycles in the climate. Clearly not one prediction these models have made have come true.

 

Then you ask why would a leader with the IPCC release such a statement? In psychological terms when people are told time and time again that there doomed...eventually in such a complex and impossible to control scenario like getting India and China and Russia to reduce emissions that such a world wide agreement is never going to happen that they just give up...stop caring and accept their fate what ever that would be. Just like when a person gets a speeding ticket. You panic...try desperately to get out of it...plan how to fight it in court...fret at night and then eventually accept the inevitable...pay the ticket...forget about it and get on with your life.

 

As this process has been ongoing...what better thing to say to the world that we still believe in global warming...even though something totally majorly huge and unexpected has dramatically influenced weather than none of our highly sophisticated computer modeling computer programs even remotely considered.

 

Rather spin it to say...we still believe in global warming. Doom is not immediate. We now have a 30 year reprive to fix our emissions. Are we not all just so lucky. So pay up and feel better about yourselves.

 

LOL...I just love this soap opera between "expert" scientists.

 

Sun

[Guest Sundancefisher]

This loveable old weatherman just says it like it is.

 

 

 

[Weedy1]

Last year our own Canadian meteorological service was so far off on their weather forecasting that they admitted that guessing "chance", using no data or models would have been no less accurate.

 

Do you have any information that supports this statement? If so please post it as I know someone that would be very interested in reviewing it.

 

[darrinhurst]

Does this mean that Manny, Sid and Deigo are going to make an appearance?

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Does this mean that Manny, Sid and Deigo are going to make an appearance?

 

 

I just want to see the squirrel. Man is he funny.

 

For those of you thinking Arctic sea ice is low and scary...check out the historical data.

 

http://ess.nrcan.gc.ca/ercc-rrcc/proj4/theme1/act6_e.php

 

This passage has been open before...no big deal. Nothing new to the Arctic. Polar bears did not die off then.

 

Cheers

 

Sun

[Castuserraticus]

From the article.

 

"The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSICD) agrees that the cold temperatures are unusual, and that the world's oceans may play a part in temperatures on land. " - You think? Afterall, the planet is over 70% covered by water and we know way less about ocean environments.

 

"But the Center disagrees with Latif's conclusions, instead arguing that the cold snap is still another sign of global warming." - Classic - cold temperatures = global warming. They probably say this with all sincerity.

 

""We are indeed starting to see the effects of the rise in greenhouse gases," he said." - I thought we were already supposed to be in deep s%&t.

 

""This is just the roll of the dice, the natural variability inherent to the system," explained Serreze." If they can't predict seasonal temperatures, how can they predict long term variability?

 

 

[canadensis]

These Climate Change scientists are just overfunded, overeducated fortune tellers. I am sure that Tarot card reading has a certain % of accuracy as well.

 

With their publicly funded education and the grant money they recieve they have duped the public into believing what they want us to believe, that their research and forecasting is critical to the long term survival of the earth. I am not saying they all have this attitude, but the vocal ones sure do. Just watch a National Geographic show on Global warming and it is something that would give children nightmares on the future of the planet. Through the media and Celebrity they have done a good job of getting their mandate to the public as a matter of fact, which it certainly is not.

 

Slowly the public is waking up to the horseshit that we are being fed.

[BBBrownie]

Say, aren't you them fellers belongin to the flat earth society?

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Say, aren't you them fellers belongin to the flat earth society?

 

versus the global warming circular theory? Ice age causes warming then CO2 causes cooling which causes warming which causes cooling which causes warming which causes cooling which causes warming which causes cooling.

 

Rather than flat or circular...I suspect climate is just plain bumpy

[Ricinus]

It is true.

 

One of the UN's IPCC leading climatologists is calling for a mini ice age...based upon NEW DATA...

 

Ha ha ha. This is too funny.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/11/...ing-scientists/

 

We are all going to freeze to death...long before we get too hot maybe

 

 

Sun, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel quoting " Faux" News as credible. As usual they cherry-picked the info to suit their own agenda.

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/201001120022.

 

Regards Mike

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Sun, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel quoting " Faux" News as credible. As usual they cherry-picked the info to suit their own agenda.

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/201001120022.

 

Regards Mike

 

I guess I could also say that you are scraping the bottom of the barrel by not seeing through the IPCC back wash. If anyone disagrees with the global warming theory regardless of profession they are either quack or oil company hacks or on the take or part of a conspiracy. If those same professions agree...then they are experts.

 

"FoxNews.com, Fox Nation, and Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft have cited a Mail on Sunday article suggesting that climate scientist Mojib Latif predicted a "mini ice age" over the next 20 or 30 years, with Hoft asserting that global warming is "junk science." But Latif has since challenged the Mail article's use of his research, and at the U.N. climate conference the Mail article references, Latif stated that while temperatures could "cool" temporarily "relative to the present level" due to natural climate variability, there is a clear "long-term warming trend" that is "manmade."

 

Think of it this way..

 

Not a single IPCC computer simulation model has been accurate. They change the models and the predictions more frequently that Calgary changes it's 7 day forcast. Long term warming trend has happened since the ice age. That was not caused by man. So what "long term" trend are they referring to? We know the 11 year trend is down slightly. Maybe 50 years is up but so is the time leading to that.

 

Clearly his peers are ticked off that he has released a model that shows 30 years of future cooling and severe cooling in the face of the past 20 years of the IPCC promoting fear that warming is unstoppable.

 

Clearly their hypothesis is false. Clearly they have no clue how to predict climate. It has been proven false over and over again. They are no where near their current temperature predictions even with yearly increases in CO2 emmisions. No matter how many stories they put forth with dire predictions of calamity...someone has a more level headed and common sense approach.

 

Polar bears are not dying out. They survived a much warming period 10,000 years ago.

 

The Arctic ice was much less abundant 10,000 that today. We all survived.

 

Sea levels by the IPCC has been rising steadily since the last ice age...we are surviving.

 

Hurricanes never got worse.

 

Tornados never got worse.

 

Massive record cold spells around the world do not imply global warming.

 

Records for hot and cold will be set for a 1000 years to come...simply assuming our 50 years of record keeping justifies panic in a 4.5 billion year old earth is crazy.

 

...and on an on.

 

I am not paying attention to who is putting words in whose mouth. I am looking at the data pure and simple. The new model predicts a 30 year cold snap. Do I believe that? No. Does it mean anything? Only that their models bounce around. I strongly suspect they run hundreds of simulations until they find one that matches the past relatively close. Then they assume the future is correct. If not accurate in my interpretation...it does not matter since they are never correct and always changing. When they strongly promoted the hockey stick model...they had a simulation that matched it. Then when proven false...they simply re ran some models and found a new one to promote. Now with the cooling trend...you bet your bottom dollar new models are being tested. LOL..Great make work project with a healthy salary and a safe office with the newest and fastest computer to play poker on while the sim is running.

 

Reduce, reuse and recycle...conserve and relax.

 

Cheers

 

Sun

 

P.S. As for a conspiracy. It took regular networks a long time before they reported on Climate gate while the internet was getting 80,000,000 hits. Announcing an anticipated mini ice age...wow that is news. Why is this not making the news? If some indicates increasing farting in Denver...you know it will be reported on. It is way easier to report on doom and gloom to sell papers than reporting...hey folks...everything is fine...check out the Oiler hockey stats if you want to be scared.

[ironfly]

Have you heard the theory that freshwater melt from the polar caps can effect warmwater ocean currents? Oh wait! That's not a theory, it's the scientific explanation for how a warming planet could have severe cold snaps, maybe even a new ice age.

 

Don't worry, though. That was just a movie, right? Oh wait, it was a book before that, and the authors cited their sources very well. And of course, it's a documented occurrence.

 

BTW, I've read several times on this forum that a whole bunch of glaciers are actually growing. So far I've only found one, in the Andes. Any references?

 

Rick

[ironfly]

What the heck do you mean polar bears are not dying off? Have you been to Churchill? How about Iqaluit? Some Inuit hunters want to hunt polar bears? So what? There's a bunch of Albertans who think the Grizzly hunt moratorium is bunk, too.

 

Rick

[Guest Sundancefisher]

What the heck do you mean polar bears are not dying off? Have you been to Churchill? How about Iqaluit? Some Inuit hunters want to hunt polar bears? So what? There's a bunch of Albertans who think the Grizzly hunt moratorium is bunk, too.

 

Rick

 

That is from the leading Polar Bear researcher. Numbers have increased since the 1970's. You may be confusing local population fluctuations versus the over health of polars bears across Canada etc.

 

There is no proof polar bears are in trouble but rather proof there is not. Look to the sea ice that was present 10,000 years ago.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Sun

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...c-warms-up.html

 

 

"Global Warming

Bjorn Lomborg: Panic And Imbalance Are the Worst Climate Threat

By Mike Byfield

 

The World Wildlife Fund warns that polar bears, now an iconic figure in the global warming debate, may stop reproducing and become functionally extinct within just 10 years. Former Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore frets that the Arctic animals, due to melting pack ice, "have been drowning in significant numbers" for the first time. A bear perched forlornly on a small ice floe made the cover of Time magazine and is currently featured in Lakehead University's national advertising. Before pressing the panic button, however, consider the polar bear population case made by Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician who spoke recently in Calgary.

 

In 2001, Lomborg (shown here) made a sizeable dent in the world's environmental consciousness with the English language edition of The Skeptical Environmentalist. The author, then an associate professor at the University of Aarhus, stressed that global warming is occurring, that the change is man-triggered to a significant degree and that it will have important ecological impacts. Even so, his book infuriated green activists. It contended that adapting to climate change offers vastly more benefits to humanity than an economy-shattering reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. That controversial thesis is fleshed out much further in Cool it - The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide To Global Warming.

 

The 252-page volume, published this fall, begins with the North's great white carnivores. Citing a 2001 study made by the Polar Bear Specialist Group of the World Conservation Union. Lomborg notes that only one or two of the world's 20 distinct population subgroups of polar bears were declining during the study period. More than half of the subgroups definitely maintained stability, while two were increasing. The population decreases occurred in regions where average temperatures had grown slightly colder, the improvements where warming had taken place.

 

Most specialists agree that the Kyoto Protocol's current provisions would have only a minimal effect on climate change, implying that much deeper reductions in carbon dioxide emissions will be required to fully stabilize temperatures. Lomborg suggests that the Kyoto agreement's implementation would preserve the life of less than one polar bear per year, with no effect whatever for several decades. "Hunters kill about 1,000 of these animals annually so it would appear more useful to reduce hunting," he told his Calgary audience at a fund-raising dinner sponsored by the Fraser Institute.

 

The Danish professor's point is more than academic. Thanks to stricter hunting regulations, the global population of polar bears has risen from approximately 5,000 during the 1960s to 25,000 today. According to Cool It, most ecologists expect higher temperatures to enrich Arctic flora and fauna. "

 

The Inuit also see the population as strong, stable and growing.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Have you heard the theory that freshwater melt from the polar caps can effect warmwater ocean currents? Oh wait! That's not a theory, it's the scientific explanation for how a warming planet could have severe cold snaps, maybe even a new ice age.

 

Don't worry, though. That was just a movie, right? Oh wait, it was a book before that, and the authors cited their sources very well. And of course, it's a documented occurrence.

 

BTW, I've read several times on this forum that a whole bunch of glaciers are actually growing. So far I've only found one, in the Andes. Any references?

 

Rick

 

In theory it sound nice...however the Earth has been warming since the last ice age...at what point in the warming process do you lay blame on fresh water? As the Earth warms and the ice age glaciers retreat...that fresh water flows into the oceans. As the percentage effect should be magnified early in the process rather than later as the oceans fill and rise, if you are correct...how in the heck do we keep warming. By your theory alone the feedback loop would keep us cold.

 

Many people look to the solar flare cycle of which we are entering in a period of reduced activity which the record shows is the principle effect on climate. Sun heats the Earth. Changes to the Sun is a direct impact.

 

Cheers

 

Sun

 

P.S. When a major (or so called major study) came out on glacier shrinking...I started emailing the scientist. I got up to asking him how many glaciers in the world. Something like over 250,000 major glaciers around the Earth. The studies usually look to 1 or a small handful. At no time has anyone done a study to see how many glaciers are growing and how many are shrinking or how many are staying the same. The problem is further confounded when understanding that a glaciers length does not define it size. Just because a glaciers leading edge is shrinking does not mean it's over all mass and thickness and density is changing. It does not define if the glacier is shrinking from heating from the Earth's core like in some Antarctic glaciers to shrinking due to climate variations in rainfall and or pollutions (man made or natural as in dust, airborne salt or ash from volcanos) darkening the ice and snow.

 

There are local variations in climate due to these ocean currents that climatologists ignore until they need to blame something for their models failing and yet never say there is significant error in their guesses due to such unknowns.

 

In the end...nobody cares to fund research on growing glaciers. Nobody cares why they grow. Nobody cares about glaciers not providing water or having great pschological impact for the press and future funding. You would think in this day and age of satelite images that someone could run a computer program to measure both area and thickness and track gross ice and net gain or loss over the whole planet. While maybe being expensive...it would be more valuable than studying one glacier. The biggest glacier I know of that has shrunk is the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets

 

Laurentide... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_ice_sheet

 

Cordilleran... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordilleran_Ice_Sheet

 

which helped form the Cypress Hills...

[ironfly]

Well, my personal experience with glaciers is limited to western North America, which I guess is a small handful. I can remember spots from twenty-five years ago, and they don't look quite the same today. Alaska, Yukon, BC, Alberta, all shrinking.

 

Driven the Ice-Field Parkway lately?

 

Rick

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Well, my personal experience with glaciers is limited to western North America, which I guess is a small handful. I can remember spots from twenty-five years ago, and they don't look quite the same today. Alaska, Yukon, BC, Alberta, all shrinking.

 

Driven the Ice-Field Parkway lately?

 

Rick

 

I would have to agree. Most of the glacier like the Columbia Icefields have shrunk...at least the part you see. Not sure about thickness but my sense is that we need to know globally what is happening to all glaciers to see if there is a net increase or decrease before we can argue scientifically that glaciers in general are in decline. As people expand so do other effects. Soot from fires and factories can influence snow melt as can clearing trees and changes to rain fall.

 

I just don't think generalized what if statements are fair. If we say glaciers are impacted...we are not smart enough to say why weather patterns change year to year or day to day. Maybe there is a cycle and we are in a down tick on an upward warming trend or an up tick on a downward trend.

 

Still again. I can not arbitrarily say all the worlds glaciers are shrinking because of what I can see from the car. Thickness is also important. Precipitation is key. Changes to snowfall has to be understood. Then all the remote glaciers need to be understood. If someone could do a comprehesive glacial mass study that was based upon Satelite data and was repeatable...I would have to say without a doubt the gross glacier mass on Earth is decreasing. Then you would have to look to causes including precipiation changes, weather pattern changes, warming effects. If warming seemed to be the only logical world wide reason then you have to ask. When did warming first start. What effect did warming have over that time.

 

There is a theory that as the Earth warms, increased moisture in the atmosphere causes increased snowfall at altitude which builds glaciers. Then you have a mass snowfall year and the reflective properties of snow cools the Earth more...this spirals into an ice age. Plausible...hard to tell as we have been steadily warming since the last ice age for this to be true one would have to assume there is a critical warming point and atmophereic moisture point needed to cause it to occur with probably other variable such as ocean currents etc.

 

Still...all theories aside...so far none of the IPCC's theory or models have worked or proven correct. They keep changing them yearly. That says...the model theory is seriously flawed. When would you agree to surgery when the range of complications could be a headache to a painful death without more information?

 

Cheers

 

Sun

 

P.S. Waiting for the ctrain to start running again

[Wanny]

P.S. Waiting for the ctrain to start running again

 

 

Hi-jack Warning

 

Whats going on with the C Train. Heading to the game soon (woot woot) and taking the train.

[TerryH]

Here's some interesting reading for all you folks interested in the AGW debate. Rex Murphy, who recently moved from the dark side (Globe & Mail) to the bright side (National Post) delivers a nice slap down of David Suzuki. Couldn't have said it better myself . Terry

[flyfishfairwx]

Here's some interesting reading for all you folks interested in the AGW debate. Rex Murphy, who recently moved from the dark side (Globe & Mail) to the bright side (National Post) delivers a nice slap down of David Suzuki. Couldn't have said it better myself . Terry

 

DS is a Eco-terrorist that I have never been able to stand!!!

 

 

Diesel guzzling buss riding hypocrite A-hole...

 

*hit said I was going to stay out of this one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SanJuanWorm]

http://globalwarming.com/

 

?

[Guest Sundancefisher]

http://globalwarming.com/

 

?

 

Sooooo.... I get it now. Since the ice age...CO2 from cave men and farts from Mammoths have caused global warming.

 

There are so many articles like this one I crave the data...non manipulated data.

 

The fact is this is such an emotional argument...how can it ever be solved without an ice age

[Ricinus]

Don't worry Sun, when Fox News new Commentator- Sarah Palin, starts presenting facts that man walked with Dinosaurs, you will have all the data you crave.

 

Regards Mike