Global Cooling - Mini Ice Age coming to a town near you?

I'm sure the global warming religion will just jump ship and claim that all climate change = global warming and it's "our" (humans) fault.

BUT, more and more I keep seeing people claiming that we are facing global cooling and a possible mini ice age. What happened to "global warming"? Will Al Gore finally go away?

http://www.bilderber...eting_2010.html

The 58th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Sitges, Spain 3 - 6 June 2010. The Conference will deal mainly with Financial Reform, Security, Cyber Technology, Energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, World Food Problem, Global Cooling, Social Networking, Medical Science, EU-US relations. Approximately 130 participants will attend of whom about two-thirds come from Europe and the balance from North America. About one-third is from government and politics, and two-thirds are from finance, industry, labor, education, and communications. The meeting is private in order to encourage frank and open discussion.

Scientists predict rare 'hibernation' of sunspots - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON (AFP) – For years, scientists have been predicting the Sun would by around 2012 move into solar maximum, a period of intense flares and sunspot activity, but lately a curious calm has suggested quite the opposite.

According to three studies released in the United States on Tuesday, experts believe the familiar sunspot cycle may be shutting down and heading toward a pattern of inactivity unseen since the 17th century.
...
Solar activity tends to rise and fall every 11 years or so. The solar maximum and solar minimum each mark about half the interval of the magnetic pole reversal on the Sun, which happens every 22 years.

Hill said the current cycle, number 24, "may be the last normal one for some time and the next one, cycle 25, may not happen for some time.

"This is important because the solar cycle causes space weather which affects modern technology and may contribute to climate change," he told reporters.

Experts are now probing whether this period of inactivity could be a second Maunder Minimum, which was a 70-year period when hardly any sunspots were observed between 1645-1715, a period known as the "Little Ice Age."

"If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we'll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth's climate," said Hill.

DailyTech - Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

Looking at my utility bills for the past few years my most expensive months have been Dec, Jan, and Feb - by A LOT. Just the month of January uses as many kWh's as May, June, July, August, September, and October combined. Is that a warming problem or a cooling problem?

My 2008 Jan average temp was 32 degrees, 2009 was 30 degrees, and 2010 was 26 degrees.

I guess we will find out...

it's currently 99 degrees outside my home. mini ice age sounds sort of pleasant.

I can only hope that this is true. Bring it on.

Bring it on. I grew up with Maine winters, I will thrive in an ice age.

it's currently 99 degrees outside my home. mini ice age sounds sort of pleasant.

It's partly cloudy and 79 where I am currently.

They're the same thing.

Welcome to 1999

I'm sure the global warming religion will just jump ship and claim that all climate change = global warming and it's "our" (humans) fault.

I am not a climate scientist, but then again, neither are you. Therefore any of the opinions we espouse as to the true nature of man's effect on the environment can, at best, be a product of the review of the assessments of that scientific community.

You have found literature suggesting that anthropomorphic climate change is false. I have found literature that leads me to believe that it is true. Granted, there is significantly wider consensus among the scientific community that the occurrence of anthropomorphic climate change is a reality.

Those who deny anthropomorphic climate change can say that climatologists are given incentive to be proponents of the logic because it could potentially mean more funding from federal sources that are keen on the idea. Of course, many scientists who provide the opposition are routinely found to be funded by the oil and coal industries who have an obvious stake in decreasing concern over climate change (worried that it would mean the end of federal subsidies and other perks or even the implementation of taxes).

....

It seems to me that you're probably such a die-hard opponent of the theory of anthropomorphic climate change because you conflate acceptance of the theory with support of a gargantuan state - or a dramatically increased degree of influence by the state into economic affairs. The two do not inherently go hand-in-hand; federal support of the development of alternative energies and other "green" solutions need not create massive bureaucracies or result in great expenditures. There even exist strategies that would save money, like the end of subsidies for the oil industry.

What I have a problem with about people who are so vociferously anti the notion of anthropomorphic climate change is this: if people like me are right and steps are taken at the federal level to promote transitions toward the broad goal of sustainability, then humanity (or our nation at least) will have done what it could to reverse or slow down the destruction of our planet's environment. If people like me are wrong and there was never a danger - or never anything man could do about it - then we would still have a more sustainable, more environmentally sound, less reliant on foreign oil powers country. If people like you are wrong, however, and neither the federal government nor humans at an individual level make any changes, then life on planet earth will be dramatically more difficult for human beings, the diversity of life on our planet will be horrifically reduced, and we as a country will still be critically dependent on the resources of other nations.

Debate on how to bring about the change aside, don't the facts in the above paragraph lend a decent amount of support to the notion that we should, as a nation (and planet) move towards a more sustainable, environmentally-sound equilibrium?

I am not a climate scientist, but then again, neither are you. Therefore any of the opinions we espouse as to the true nature of man's effect on the environment can, at best, be a product of the review of the assessments of that scientific community.

You have found literature suggesting that anthropomorphic climate change is false. I have found literature that leads me to believe that it is true. Granted, there is significantly wider consensus among the scientific community that the occurrence of anthropomorphic climate change is a reality.

Those who deny anthropomorphic climate change can say that climatologists are given incentive to be proponents of the logic because it could potentially mean more funding from federal sources that are keen on the idea. Of course, many scientists who provide the opposition are routinely found to be funded by the oil and coal industries who have an obvious stake in decreasing concern over climate change (worried that it would mean the end of federal subsidies and other perks or even the implementation of taxes).

....

It seems to me that you're probably such a die-hard opponent of the theory of anthropomorphic climate change because you conflate acceptance of the theory with support of a gargantuan state - or a dramatically increased degree of influence by the state into economic affairs. The two do not inherently go hand-in-hand; federal support of the development of alternative energies and other "green" solutions need not create massive bureaucracies or result in great expenditures. There even exist strategies that would save money, like the end of subsidies for the oil industry.

What I have a problem with about people who are so vociferously anti the notion of anthropomorphic climate change is this: if people like me are right and steps are taken at the federal level to promote transitions toward the broad goal of sustainability, then humanity (or our nation at least) will have done what it could to reverse or slow down the destruction of our planet's environment. If people like me are wrong and there was never a danger - or never anything man could do about it - then we would still have a more sustainable, more environmentally sound, less reliant on foreign oil powers country. If people like you are wrong, however, and neither the federal government nor humans at an individual level make any changes, then life on planet earth will be dramatically more difficult for human beings, the diversity of life on our planet will be horrifically reduced, and we as a country will still be critically dependent on the resources of other nations.

Debate on how to bring about the change aside, don't the facts in the above paragraph lend a decent amount of support to the notion that we should, as a nation (and planet) move towards a more sustainable, environmentally-sound equilibrium?

You are making a common mistake in thinking people who have a healthy doubt over AGW dont care about a sustainable ecosystem/energy source. At least that seems to be what your suggesting.

When you spoke to the option of dealing with carbon emmission and climate issues now, you only mention the end result of a population that has secured sustainable clean energy for itself as if thats the only way it can turn out.

What your leaving out is the possibility that we overreact to something we cant change anyway, and we destroy our economy trying to prevent something that has always been out of our hands, leaving us unable to adapt to the coming climate change.

You have found literature suggesting that anthropomorphic climate change is false. I have found literature that leads me to believe that it is true.

I'd like to see the literature that convinced you man is responsible for climate change.

All I've ever been shown is a correlation fallacy (the industrial revolution coincides with rise in temperature) and an appeal to authority (3 out of 4 scientists approve!).

Debate on how to bring about the change aside, don't the facts in the above paragraph lend a decent amount of support to the notion that we should, as a nation (and planet) move towards a more sustainable, environmentally-sound equilibrium?

This is the only question (statement) you posed.

Who determines what that is? Why would bureaucrats in DC know the answer to your question better than the free-market? What we have now is just crony capitalism benefiting those with close ties to government (GE). That's nothing new or innovative or "green" unless of course you are talking about dollar bills. If we have learned anything from the past it is that will only lead to malinvestment and squandering of already scarce resources.

Here are the questions I posed, feel free to answer them, or not:

What happened to "global warming"?
Will Al Gore finally go away?

Looking at my utility bills for the past few years my most expensive months have been Dec, Jan, and Feb - by A LOT. Just the month of January uses as many kWh's as May, June, July, August, September, and October combined.

Is that a warming problem or a cooling problem?

I hate how this is a political issue. I wish this thread was in Science and Nature.

I hate how this is a political issue. I wish this thread was in Science and Nature.

It belongs in both.

There is a way to discuss the science behind it ( and lack thereof in some instances).

Or

We can discuss the political ramifications, such as economy, regulation, and lawmaking.

What I have a problem with about people who are so vociferously anti the notion of anthropomorphic climate change is this: if people like me are right and steps are taken at the federal level to promote transitions toward the broad goal of sustainability, then humanity (or our nation at least) will have done what it could to reverse or slow down the destruction of our planet's environment. If people like me are wrong and there was never a danger - or never anything man could do about it - then we would still have a more sustainable, more environmentally sound, less reliant on foreign oil powers country. If people like you are wrong, however, and neither the federal government nor humans at an individual level make any changes, then life on planet earth will be dramatically more difficult for human beings, the diversity of life on our planet will be horrifically reduced, and we as a country will still be critically dependent on the resources of other nations.

Debate on how to bring about the change aside, don't the facts in the above paragraph lend a decent amount of support to the notion that we should, as a nation (and planet) move towards a more sustainable, environmentally-sound equilibrium?

If people like me are right then there is nothing wrong with the environment that has not been intentionally perpetrated on to it in order to bring about a global government.

Your last paragraph proves what so many have been denying in these forums. Global problems require international committees to meet and find solutions. These global solutions have nothing to do with democracy, individual freedom or even transparency and truth.

Their solutions are kept secret and are being implemented behind the scenes so that nobody can stop them. This is happening because the over-hype seems so threatening.

Its the solutions to these problems that threaten us all. Their solutions threaten our way of live and our very survivle. I believe that the world is being plunged in to environmental fascism and not by accident or some natural progression.

Changing Tides: Research Center Under Fire for 'Adjusted' Sea-Level Data - FoxNews.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."

- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So global warming was indeed a failure as I've been saying for years.
I told EVERYBODY it was made up to instill fear into people.
To make people change their lives, to do things another way.

If I was president, I'd take the freedom of the press and make them be accountable for any inaccuracies and/or any misleading or construed facts.

I hate how this is a political issue. I wish this thread was in Science and Nature.

Its a political issue because the solutions to these PERCEIVED problems effect the law and everything about our lives.

The Bad Astronomer says no

Are we headed for a new ice age? | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

But there are fires out west so that must mean global warming....


Global warming is burning down the American West - Global warming - Salon.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"It doesn't matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true."

- Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Warming, cooling, it depends on your location. That's part of climate change. Some areas experience unusual cooling, others, warming, or so the theory goes. Regardless, pumping noxious gases into the atmosphere is never a good thing. I pretty sure science will say the same and our environmental policies should follow accordingly.

Our big SUVs are causing the ice caps on mars to melt.

It is 101 down here, and hasnt rained in over 4 months, that is the longest consecutive days in a row that it hasn't rained in here.

Ice age, maybe in time but within these next 100 years im not very convinced.