Global freezing: A ‘mini ice age’ is on the way by 2030, scientists say

[LU7 RED]

It's good that people understand that if 'Global warming' does exist, it doesn't automatically mean we get warmer.

One scenario is the ice in the northern polar regions starts to melt and affects the Gulf Stream. If the Gulf stream packs up, it's time to get the woollies out. After all, the UK has the same latitude as Hudson Bay.

 

[Brixtaan]

It's good that people understand that if 'Global warming' does exist, it doesn't automatically mean we get warmer.

One scenario is the ice in the northern polar regions starts to melt and affects the Gulf Stream. If the Gulf stream packs up, it's time to get the woollies out. After all, the UK has the same latitude as Hudson Bay.

This is the ONLY realistic outcome as far as I can see. The sea temperature is the only constant datum point that we should be watching as this will affect everything. And its getting warmer so i can't see any alternative to the ice caps melting. The ice caps reflect heat so this procedure will only accelerate. Frightening but my only concern right now is house prices of that of mine in particular being only 50 yds from the beach.

 

[Blue3]

Its not called global warming.

Not this week anyway

 

[edna krabappel]

Just waiting for the Mail to pick up on this story

It's actually the Daily Express that is the regular weather-apocalypse doom-monger these days.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Maybe if you read the thread you would see it was the OP who brought up climate change (or 'global warming' as they call it), which is what I was responding to, you patronising scamp.

A lot of the information used to support things like the claims for global warming (which it isn't warming hence why it's now called climate change) was based on statistics and studies using an extremely narrow time frame of study, (so many headlines of the hottest June since records began,etc) but they don't tell you that the record only started a handful of years earlier and several years had similar temperatures because it's not got that scare factor.

Solar activity plays a massive part in our climate, and the article refers to a phase in our suns natural cycle when sun spot activity drops to around it's lowest level for a cycle but we do not have accurate records for any similar occurrences in the past and by using the same logic, if they started the same sort of media frenzy driven campaign that was used for Global warming when the cycle finally begins in a few years, then they could claim mans influence was cooling the planet, and the balance of life was in the balance unless we change our ways and we are the cause of it all through industrialisation...etc........ - the time you start to study and record patterns and the point within the numerous cycles that affect this planet that begins will affect how the outcome will look if you assume that our weather doesn't naturally alter as much as it actually does naturally.

A lot of people believe it's more or less constant so any change must be caused by man (quick sell them expensive solar panels and wind power) and what great way of stopping a panic and getting people used to the idea of reducing their power demands, etc as we run out of coal, gas & oil which will have a massive impact on peoples quality of life when it finally happens, global warming / climate change or whatever gets people used to the idea of change and therefore more willing to accept the loss of the usual sources of generating power that we use.

I did read the article, as it happens. I noted it was written on a website called marketwatch.com by a markets reporter (not a science journalist) and appeared to be a report on an article in The Independent, rather than anything like actual research, so unlikely to be a totally unbiased point of view.

There were multiple reports on this in the last few days so would it have made you believe it if they had used any of the following instead?

Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...w-model-of-the-suns-cycle-shows-10382400.html

Telegraph science section: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html

And still plenty of other sources that were running similar articles

I took just a couple of minutes to see if there was more on this story anywhere and found quite a lot people disagreed with the findings of this research. But 'mini ice age' makes a good headline, so this is what has found its way into the newspapers.

What? they disagree that the sun is about to hit the low activity period in it's natural cycle?

or that the last time the sun was in a similar state of sun spot inactivity was when the Thames last froze over?

Or that there will be a mini ice age which the scientist that the report is based on never mentioned in their initial work (but does when responding to the unexpected headlines and media coverage that followed (saying that its may not become a mini ice age then but it was still a possibility)

 

[pastafarian]

point 1

its solar activity, proving without doubt the sun is god and we are all sun worshipping pagans .......yes im looking at you christians!

point 2

its well hot,i welcome an ice age

 

[beorhthelm]

I also think a lot of people (generally idiots) seem to miss the point that man made climate change is not just about temperature

maybe because thats what the scientist keeping telling us about? im interested to hear what other parts of the climate we are supposed to be directly affecting (rather than indirectly through temperature).

 

[wellquickwoody]

So you believe this one scientist who has said there's going to be a mini-ice age over the thousands of other scientists who warn about man-made climate change?

Generally speaking I do not believe any of the fxxkers as they are just using publicity to spout a poorly researched media announcement that has been created to justify their job and inflated salary. If these scientists/researchers said nothing they would be made redundant.

 

[W.C.]

Generally speaking I do not believe any of the fxxkers as they are just using publicity to spout a poorly researched media announcement that has been created to justify their job and inflated salary. If these scientists/researchers said nothing they would be made redundant.

Do you seriously believe that all of these scientists are all in it for the money and if they couldn't jump on the climate change band wagon they could do nothing else to support themselves?

 

[Seagull27]

maybe because thats what the scientist keeping telling us about? im interested to hear what other parts of the climate we are supposed to be directly affecting (rather than indirectly through temperature).

Ocean acidification, for a start. When CO2 dissolves in water it produces an acid called carbonic acid. As more CO2 enters our atmosphere, the oceans absorb a portion of it, becoming more acidic. Coral reefs are made of calcium carbonate, which dissolves in acidic solution. Therefore, climate change will (and is) lead to coral reefs disappearing, meaning huge ecosystems and many underwater species dying out

 

[Seagull27]

Generally speaking I do not believe any of the fxxkers as they are just using publicity to spout a poorly researched media announcement that has been created to justify their job and inflated salary. If these scientists/researchers said nothing they would be made redundant.

Inflated salary?! I can assure you that the vast majority of academic research scientists aren't in it for the money as with their qualifications they could get paid considerably more in industry, or in another sector entirely.

 

[larus]

GlobalCooling in the 1970's, changed to Global Warming in the 1980's/1990's, then to Climate Change since about 2000.

There are a lot of scientists who dispute that the change in CO2 level is impacting global temperatures. The original 'hockey stick' graph has been debunked (read about Michael Mann Hockey Stick). What about the Climategate email scandal at East Angli universtity? 'Hide The Pause' tricks. Yes, there were agreeing how to manipulate data.

Few facts.
CO2 in the past has been much higher than it is now.
CO2 is a plant food. The higher the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, the better plants grow.
Antartic Sea Ice is at its highest extent ever recorded.
CO2 has increased by by about 1 part in 10,000. Yep; CO2 has gone from 287/1,000,0000 to 400/1,000,000. It's a TRACE gas. No more.
A lot of temperatue stations are sited in areas where the readings are being corrupted by UHE (Urban Heat Effect), due to being in built up areas. So, compared to historical temperatures, the current readings are higher. No shit sherlock.
Read the phyics behind how CO2 is meant to heat the atmosphere. It's meant to trap raditated heat, but this has been proven that it doesn't stack up, as it's not in a closed system. I.e. the heat will escape through to space.

If you get your information regarding Global Warming (as this is what it's meant to be doing, but there's been a pause now for about 18 years) from the likes of the BBC/Guardian (naturally left-wing/green agenda), then do some additional research. Read some sceptic sites (WhattsUpWithThat), and make your own decision. Don't just listen to the propaganda.

I'm not saying we shouldn't treat the environment with respect, but don't believe the MSM.

Remember those scare stories about runaway global warming. Hmmm, I do. Well, it's crap IMO. I realise that a lot of the green types are closed to a debate, so I expect a lot of down votes on this.

 

[beorhthelm]

They always mention the other stuff as well. The media concentrate on the temperature.

so help us out with the other aspects then.

Ocean acidification, for a start.

Oceans and coral are not the climate. thgouh fair point, that is another consequence of CO2 increases.

 

[Tony Towner's Fridge]

Look on the bright side. It guarantees the end to the Green Party rule in Brighton and their demise nationally.


Fracking anyone?


TNBA

TTF

 

[looney]

Its not called global warming.

Yes its, anthropological global warming, try to educate yourself/

 

[BadFish]

GlobalCooling in the 1970's, changed to Global Warming in the 1980's/1990's, then to Climate Change since about 2000.

There are a lot of scientists who dispute that the change in CO2 level is impacting global temperatures. The original 'hockey stick' graph has been debunked (read about Michael Mann Hockey Stick). What about the Climategate email scandal at East Angli universtity? 'Hide The Pause' tricks. Yes, there were agreeing how to manipulate data.

Few facts.
CO2 in the past has been much higher than it is now.
CO2 is a plant food. The higher the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, the better plants grow.
Antartic Sea Ice is at its highest extent ever recorded.
CO2 has increased by by about 1 part in 10,000. Yep; CO2 has gone from 287/1,000,0000 to 400/1,000,000. It's a TRACE gas. No more.
A lot of temperatue stations are sited in areas where the readings are being corrupted by UHE (Urban Heat Effect), due to being in built up areas. So, compared to historical temperatures, the current readings are higher. No shit sherlock.
Read the phyics behind how CO2 is meant to heat the atmosphere. It's meant to trap raditated heat, but this has been proven that it doesn't stack up, as it's not in a closed system. I.e. the heat will escape through to space.

If you get your information regarding Global Warming (as this is what it's meant to be doing, but there's been a pause now for about 18 years) from the likes of the BBC/Guardian (naturally left-wing/green agenda), then do some additional research. Read some sceptic sites (WhattsUpWithThat), and make your own decision. Don't just listen to the propaganda.

I'm not saying we shouldn't treat the environment with respect, but don't believe the MSM.

Remember those scare stories about runaway global warming. Hmmm, I do. Well, it's crap IMO. I realise that a lot of the green types are closed to a debate, so I expect a lot of down votes on this.

It is interesting that you have presented all this information without a single link or citation. When you say 'a lot of scientists' what you mean is 'a very small minority of scientists'. The reason that many people are closed to this debate is because science tells us that the debate is over and that climate change is caused by CO2 and it is incredibly likely that that is due to man. This isn't about believing the MSM this is about believing the scientific community (they publish their own peer reviewed studies)

http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/e1/u...85bc4639953b863645ceb13c2f6641b-converted.mp4

This video is one of many links to many studies that explain the consensus in science.

Can you tell me why we shouldn't the scientific community whose role it is to tell us about stuff?

 

[looney]

It is interesting that you have presented all this information without a single link or citation. When you say 'a lot of scientists' what you mean is 'a very small minority of scientists'. The reason that many people are closed to this debate is because science tells us that the debate is over and that climate change is caused by CO2 and it is incredibly likely that that is due to man. This isn't about believing the MSM this is about believing the scientific community (they publish their own peer reviewed studies)

http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/e1/u...85bc4639953b863645ceb13c2f6641b-converted.mp4

This video is one of many links to many studies that explain the consensus in science.

Can you tell me why we shouldn't the scientific community whose role it is to tell us about stuff?

Try looking at how this "consensus" was arrived at, its flakey as hell. Consensus is politics, its not a scientific term or desire, as scientists seek enquiry and critisism.

 

[BadFish]

Try looking at how this "consensus" was arrived at, its flakey as hell. Consensus is politics, its not a scientific term or desire, as scientists seek enquiry and critisism.

I have looked at it. I have read a number of scientists saying that they are happy with it. I have read a number of studies.

To be honest I haven't found a reason to suspect the scientific community are wrong on this one.

There is still a little doubt about this one but when we have the alternative technologies in the pipeline i really don't see the problem of erring on the side of caution and cutting our CO2 usage.

 

[beorhthelm]

To be honest I haven't found a reason to suspect the scientific community are wrong on this one.

not even when the many predictions of medium term outcomes have not occured? erring on the side of caution and reducing CO2, and many other pollutants, is a good idea in itself. however, is it worth incurring significant costs to individuals, or suppressing industrialisation and growth in developing countries? there is a great deal of dishonesty behind the science that wouldnt be tolerated elsewhere in hard scientfic disciplines.

 

[BadFish]

not even when the many predictions of medium term outcomes have not occured? erring on the side of caution and reducing CO2, and many other pollutants, is a good idea in itself. however, is it worth incurring significant costs to individuals, or suppressing industrialisation and growth in developing countries? there is a great deal of dishonesty behind the science that wouldnt be tolerated elsewhere in hard scientfic disciplines.

I am not convinced that the actions we have to take necessarily have to do any of those things. If we use less, continue to invest in renewables then we can provide all our power needs cheaply and with minimal CO2 emissions. All the while providing jobs in a growing sector and stimulating economies.

I am interested to know more about the things you talk about in this post though. especially the dishonesty and significant costs to individuals? suppressing industrialisations?