World on verge of ‘mini ice age’ ? Geophysicist rejects global warming theory

I tend to believe the cooling trend will continue, as the OP states. Usually whenever the CO2 levels are this high, an event is soon pending. It does seem as though we are coming to the end of our current interglacial period also. Normally it is about a 100,000 year cycle (90k years of glaciation, and a 10k yr warming - rinse repeat). And as noted in the OP, the magnetic levels drop prior to a cooling event also, and we are at about 40% of field strength. And if the UK does plan to field test their new G eoEngineering project, it will accomplish 2 things. Contaminate the upper layers of our atmosphere with sulphates, and reflect the sun. If the sun were cooling, then we would have no need for this aspect of geoengineering to 'control global warming'. The 'test' would be to basically simulate a major volcanic eruption. Last time I checked, volcanic eruptions on a vast scale tend to drop the global temperature (and also further contaminate the oceans with acid rain). This I fear, would accelerate the incoming ice age to within a few years versus a few decades.

S and F for the Op! One question I would like to pose to our scientific members.

Every 11 years he sun changes polarity or the poles flip caused by the transport of meridional flows on the sun’s surface that carry magnetic fields from mid-latitude sunspots to the sun’s poles. These flows transport south-pointing magnetic flux to the north magnetic pole, and north-pointing flux to the south magnetic pole.

From the Op's opening post, If the sun is capable of changing poles every 11yrs, I would think that the Earth is capable of it also? Obviously, our time frame is way different, but I'll guess that since the sun's pole changes effect us directly, would not the changes to the Earth's poles also significantly effect ourselves also?

reply to post by mugger


As far as I can determine, the solar magnetic reversals could possibly trigger an Earth magnetic reversal, but I'm guessing intensity would be a factor. If the solar reversals are 'mild' reversals, and our own magnetic field is at full strength, then we could sustain our polarity. If the sun did undergo a strong and turbulent reversal, and our heliosphere was weak, then it would possibly influence our alignment. Our own magnetic reversals tend to work in cycles of approximately 12,000 year cycles (depending on which stream of academics you paddle in ), and occassionally we only have magnetic excursions instead of reversals. Excursions are a wandering of magnetic north over an undetermined distance, and then realigns itself to 'proper magnetic north'.
When the sun flips and we dont (North/south vs South/North), then we get a magnetic flux between us and the sun that resembles the number 0. When our magnetic north is the same as the sun the field resembles the number 8 turned sideways.

reply to post by hopenotfeariswhatweneed
Here, here, too true my friend. Mr Maurice M Cotterell's studies, works & books are goldmines of information. He indeed decyphered the Mayan Calendar & corralated the fact that sun spots are to blame for our planets major changes, something that the MSM would rather that 95% of the public believes happens in a film. Mr Cotterell also decyphered many things that the Mayan civilization encoded on burial tombs & on burial masks, how a whole civilizations prophecies can be ignored is beyond my comprehension. Some people see the Mayans as a blood thirsty race but they had inteligent irrigation systems, built enormous temples & also knew that their water supply would never run out ! that's without mentioning the great lenghts they went to to store their information in cypher/code/glyphs.
Sorry I was going off topic a touch there, I must close this reply saying that I believe the global warming warning is a scam. Things have being getting colder each winter in my part of the country that once was a Great Britain. I believe that towards the suns pole shift next year things are going to get a whole lot crazier, especialy as our planets own poles are in the process of shifting, albiet gradualy. I'm getting the families thermals out just incase & I would encourage all people to do the same

i would love a mini ica age

There have been ice ages but have there been "hot" ages, like hotter than now(since we are not in a ice age now). How hot has it got outside a ice age?

reply to post by intergalactic fire


I had recently heard something about a stalled thermosaline system in the Gulf because of the BP oil spill and was wondering what if any effect this might have on the cooling trend and what if any thoughts any of you have on this subject?

S&F, i agree we are cooling down, just like this planet has done time and time again and will continue the cycle over and over again..

I have a house in the mountains of upstate NY, every year it has been getting colder much sooner then it should

This year the leaves have been falling for over a week now and are changing color, its a bit early for that. Its also been getting colder at night from the last two weeks of August, nights in the high 40s to low 50s, We only needed AC a few times this summer.

Last year it started snowing on October 10th, also a bit early for snow and the leaves were just starting to turn. The snow accumulation wasn't as bad as past years but the temps were much lower.

NYC got more snow then eastern upstate NY.

So i do believe its getting colder over all and not warmer.

Been doing a lot of winterizing indoors and out this year to get ready for winter. just got a new 90 % efficient wood burning stove and 2 extra cords of firewood just in case.

Guess we'll have to wait and see what happens this winter and the next few winters to come to see if the trend continues.

reply to post by intergalactic fire

You're SPOT on man. Excellent work, but the more evidence you present to people, the more they get confused, the more opportunities you give them to 'jump ship' and vomit back anything they have heard on TV.
In fact, only two graphs are enough to debunk the GW theory forever. The one with the temperature during Medieval times and the temp profile over thousands of years showing CO2 FOLLOWS temperature.




This graph proves beyond anything anyone can ever say that, even if GW theory was right, there must be something else that can raise the temperature very high (like during Medieval times), so if they are really worried about that, they should say it and look for it. Of course, it must be totally natural, so it directly leads to the sun activity, and they don't want to get there, it MUST be CO2 and humans MUST be responsible for it, so they can tax them.



But of course, they aren't because the second graph shows that CO2 is not even a potential culprit. Anyone with a half brain sees that CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around, unless CO2 can affect the past... The discussion is over, at least for a scientist, but not for the lying crooks, so they can tax all financial transactions, based on the ludicrous pretext that it represents the damage done to the planet.

As if paying taxes would solve anything, when we know that the USA has already granted exceptions to their big buddies, like General Electric. The Pentagon who generates tens of millions of greenhouse gasses has a blanket exemption in all international climate agreements.

That clearly shows genuine worry for the planet.

So, in the end, it's just a way to eliminate competition, and tax everyone for nothing.
Not surprising in this scamerican world..

I have been a long time beleiver that the world in general is cooling over the past decade and weather patterns have been changing longer than that, even thou we have had some extreme heat days the last few summers here in Melbourne, Australia.

As a child in the 1980's, I clearly remember we used to get regular heatwaves that would last 4-5 days and hover between 40-45 degrees celcius.

The last 15 or so years heat-waves in Melbourne have become pretty much non existant. The longest spell we get on average is 3 days before a change in the weather.

Last year the East Coast of Australia had the second most severe La Nina on record.....and it is poised to repeat again this coming summer.....La Nina is caused by the cooling of the pacific Ocean....how closely related that is to global cooling Im not 100% sure but I cannot remember there ever being 2 years in a row that La Nina has been happening? Last summer we had several days that were more humid than Bali/Thailand was at the same time......it was crazy, and Melbourne is so far south in Latitude, our walls and floors were wet all day due to the humidity.

Regarding melting ice during the last decade, I dont have the link to the reports but there was an investigation that attributed the melting ice caps (even thou the world was/is cooling) to increase soot from pollution.

Increase soot in the air settles on the ice caps. Soot conducts heat alot better thus causing the ice caps to melt faster, even thou the world is cooling.

This physical example of melting ice is what the Al-Gores of the world use to trick/fool the publics mind into beleiving the world is heating up with fudged climate data and trying to rm home carbon taxes.

Melting Ice caps have nothing to do with global warming, its directly correlated with increased pollution in the atmosphere.....

TPTB i think are trying to bring on an ice age sooner rather than later as it would be the quickest (and most innocent) method to kill the majority of thrid world populations.......

reply to post by Melbourne_Militia

TPTB i think are trying to bring on an ice age sooner rather than later as it would be the quickest (and most innocent) method to kill the majority of thrid world populations.......

It certainly would explain all the underground establishments, eh? Even so, I doubt the PTB actually did the math or research on the far reaching implications of their accelerated agenda. Even the mini ice age lasted for centuries, but there were unaffected areas near the equator. It would be bad news for europe, Siberia, and the northern North America.

Don't expect an ice age in the US.

Didn't it just snow for the first time in New Zealand?

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by Fromabove

There are a lot of flash frozen mammoths in Siberia to show us that extreme cold can happen very fast.

No there aren't. Most mammoth remains are bones only. A small handful of mammoths have been found in the permafrost which were 'mummified' by the peat bogs in which they fell and thus well preserved - similar to the so called 'bog people'. None were flash frozen.

Maybe we should read this then. It seems that the mammoths were frozen so that the food in their stomachs froze as well. The flesh on the mammoths was fresh enough to feed to dogs. The mammoths, whether in the much or above ground were eating summertime food when they were frozen solid within a few short days of their last meal. Thus, a quick climatic change took place.

survive2012.com...

And I'll toss this in for extra reading.

www.holloworbs.com...

Originally posted by Onboard2
Don't expect an ice age in the US.

We had glaciers in the US during the last ice agehere, so I wouldn't quite rule it out yet We get our jet stream usually fresh out of Canada.

reply to post by guitarist


Yes, as i said before i also experience a 'cold trend' for last couple of years. We had to coldest summer in 25 years in N-Europe, with lots of rain and when the sun came out, temperatures rose from 12 degrees C to a 30 degrees C just in 1 day. But didn't last long, after 2-3 days we were back at a low temperature rainy, stormy,... what you want, but no sun.
Also in S-Europe it followed a same trend, temperatures were higher than in N-Europe, but compared to 5-15 years ago it was still colder.
We've had snow at very low altitudes, almost at sea-level! My father-in-law had never saw this in his lifetime! For the first time he bought 'winter tires' for his car
Also the storms from past 2 years, he never witnessed this before.

I wonder when this year's winter will start?

Yes, we'll have to wait and see what nature will do and science will provides us.

For solar activity, last year the sun had it's second longest cycle since 1755.
It lasted for 12.6 years.
The longest one was SC4(1784-1798) 13.6 years.
Notice that right after that we experienced the Dalton Minimum, (presented in the first graph).
Also notice the maximum and minimum SSN after this long duration cycle en.wikipedia.org... ( yes it's a wiki link, but i verified this with other data, wiki gives a easy presentation on this)

So could the previous cycle be an indication what will happen now with SC24?
Well a way scientists trying to predict the behaviour of the current one is by looking at the previous one.
SC23 had the deepest solar minimum in almost a 100 years.
The solar minimum of sc23 was unusually deep and the sun appears to be on the verge of a weak solar cycle.

David Hathaway, a NASA solar physicist who studies the sun's conveyor belt reports:

the top of the sun's Great Conveyor Belt has been running at record-high speeds for the past five years.
"I believe this could explain the unusually deep solar minimum we've been experiencing"

The speed-up was surprising on two levels
First, it coincided with the deepest solar minimum in nearly 100 years, contradicting models that say a fast-moving belt should boost sunspot production. The basic idea is that the belt sweeps up magnetic fields from the sun's surface and drags them down to the sun's inner dynamo. There the fields are amplified to form the underpinnings of new sunspots. A fast-moving belt should accelerate this process
Instead of boosting sunspots, Hathaway believes that a fast-moving Conveyor Belt can instead suppress them "by counteracting magnetic diffusion at the sun's equator." read more

solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov...
solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov...
Predicting the behavior of a sunspot cycle is fairly reliable once the cycle is well underway (about 3 years after the minimum in sunspot number occurs)
Solar Cycle Prediction

Link to another graph of the solar polar field strength
The graph is suggesting that we still don't have a lot of flux flowing towards the poles which could indicate a longer and lower solar minimum.
Current projections are that both fields will have reversed sometime between February 2012 and December 2012. Based on previous solar cycles and the current polar field situation, the maximum for cycle 24 could be reached earlier than expected, probably sometime in 2012.
N-field strength
wso.stanford.edu...
S-field strength
wso.stanford.edu...

If all this results into a cooling?
We just have to wait until next year's solar maximum, when imo, new conclusive evidence will emerge on the effects of solar activity to earth's climate 'change'.
Can you wait that long?

reply to post by Onboard2


no snows in New Zealand every winter, otherwise the ski fields wouldn't be able to open.

reply to post by jpbianchi


When will they begin to tax the sun?
I wouldn't be surprised

reply to post by voidla

Why do people use the term "global warming" when trying to prove a point? It's called climate change.

Because:

• The original theory was named 'Global Warming'... 'Climate Change' came along later, interestingly enough about the same time 'Global Warming' began to have negative connotations to the general public.
  
  
• The theory is that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is absorbing and re-emitting energy in the form of heat, causing the heat to linger longer in the atmosphere and warm the planet. The only cooling possibly included in this theory would be localized cooling due to changes in oceanic currents or weather systems... which would be negligible compared to the theorized warming.

Interestingly enough, if one studies the absorption spectra of carbon dioxide and compares it to the radiation emitted by the earth, one would notice that as the earth warms, carbon dioxide becomes less of a greenhouse gas due to the fact that the radiation frequency of a warmer earth increases, migrating away from the absorption spectra of carbon dioxide. Conversely, as the earth cools, the radiation frequencies emitted by the earth would decrease, moving into the absorption spectra of carbon dioxide and increasing the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide.

This is not in dispute; what may be in dispute is the amount of differential in the greenhouse gas effect of carbon dioxide at different temperature levels.

What this means is that carbon dioxide will act to some extent as a self-adjusting mechanism, keeping temperatures on the planet stable. In that respect, carbon dioxide may well be insignificant to Global Warming, but instrumental in slowing or mitigating an Ice Age.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by ZeussusZ
There have been ice ages but have there been "hot" ages, like hotter than now(since we are not in a ice age now). How hot has it got outside a ice age?

The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) of 65MM years ago, the Roman Warm Period approximately 2,000 years ago , and the Medeival Warm Period approximatelty 1,000 years ago were all much warmer than the present.

Western industrialization has not yet been proven to have been responsible, and there were no carbon-trading schemes, cap and trade or carbon taxes that ended them, according to a consensus of climate scientists.

The science is settled.

jw

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

THIS THREAD IS ALL BASED ON TOTAL CRAP SCIENCE/INTERPRETATIONS!!!

*facepalm* You've got to be kidding me people, do you really fall for this??

HOW MANY TIMES MUST WE DEBUNK THIS DENIER CRAP BEFORE IT FLUSHES???