Second Little Ice Age

When you're in a hole over your head the smart thing to do is stop digging.

YeS, his chart may have indidcated CO2 but we were talikng about WARMING and if you werent such an idiot you could have easily found the correct chart indicating temperature and wouldnt have to sound like a complete moron.

SO ENDTH THE LESSON.

Setanta belongs on everybody's ignore list.

You may be right. but I dont have anyone on an ignore list regardless how moronic...just my personal policy.

I can understand the thinking and 40 years ago might have agreed but, at this point, I don't really feel I have time to deal with pure cretins, and there is a little gaggle of about 20 pure cretins on a2k which come near to spoiling the place. My own little a2k cretin/ignore list reads like this:

Nark Mobble
AmmarEve
Pearlylustre
DNA Thumbs drive
SH
imawonderingwhy
Lordyaswas
Setanta
MontereyJack
InfraBlue
izzythepush
Rockhead
JimmyJ
raprap
DrewDad
parados
tenderfoot
firefly

A rogues gallery of stone cold idiots to be sure.

Notice that there are a handful of others, most notably farmerman, who are hard on my stomach much of the time but who have enough in the way of redeeming features that they'll never make the cretin list. Farmerman actually adds useful information to discussions here and there.

As usual, you provide no evidence, just your unsubstantiated word. I have no reason to consider you an authority on anything, so i won't take your word. As it happens, Roswell and i weren't discussing warming, dipshit, we were discussing periods of climactic cooling.

You, as is the case with Gunga Dim, have a polemical agenda--a political agenda. You're not talking about science, you're talking about you batshit crazy conservative political position.

Have fun, i won't waste any more time on you.

I think that the actual climate change has "warming" just as one indicator. But it's there, globally (that's why it is global climate change)


Source: National Aeronautics and Space Administration - GISS


Source: in pic

However, with the title 'second little ice age," the topic of this thread is clearly cooling, not warming--a fact which seems to have escaped G. I. Joe, there.

I really don't get that so many don't understand "average". (And the specialists here have no idea what world means).

Three years ago, we had had temperatures here close to -30°C, over a couple of days. Still, that winter was one of the warmest ...



But with our state's 34,084.13 km² (13,159.96 sq mi) I live in a just tiny part of 510,072,000 km² (196,940,000 sq mi) ...

Walter, the only thing these "specialists" specialize in is right-wing polemics. The capitalists in the energy sector have suckered them big time--they'll go to their grave denying any need to curb the use of fossil fuels or to reduce the CO2 output What's good for Standard Oil . . .

Ya, if ya cant take the heat...

Saying that the consrevatives position on climate change is political is rich! The leftists were the ones caught lying about the data...that wasnt to further science...it was to push a POLITICAL agenda...DUMBASS.

The answer to these liars was done with real science and can be found in the book "Climatism!"

Get someone to read it to ya.

This is why I find discussing this topic among folks who feel they are informed sufficiently, a total waste.
We could discuss tgis in a heated yet intelligent fashion until the insults break out.

Im a liberal who feels that
1CLIMATE is on the up side
2NO conclusive data is yet available that says its anthrpogenic. The sunspots/Dansgaard cycles, Precession/ wobbles of the earth , all provide a fairly good climate data package from ice cores, tree rings, pollen in varve deposits, etc. THESE Evidence MUST be explained convincingly as human induced.

Ive been a fence sitter on this since 1986 when I saw my first pollen samples from dried up periglacial lakes that straddled the Pleistocene/Holocene /"Prolocene"

I agree farmer...but when attacked by idiots I defend, less their idotic statements stand as credible.

The bigest problem I have is with people like Al gore and James Hansen along with those at the university in PA. that were caught lying and cooking the books re; the data, to further a POLICTICAL aganda.

That kind of arrogance, whereby they think the public is stupid and they must protect us from ourselves, is the reason I reject wholesale any data they profer. I instead look to those who do not have such a big axe to grind.

I am not with out the ability to understand scientific concepts. I read Climatism! with a jaundiced eye, on the look out for bullshit and found the science was credible and well resourced. The author didnt state conjecture based on "models" but instead stated the facts and let the reader decide.

I agree with you that there is no credible evidence that man is responsible for climate change. I dont think man is even contributing directly to any significant effect. The destruction of the rain forest concerns me but again I will say the earth is VERY resilant and man very resourceful. So in the end I worry not about climate change.

Frankly, I worry more about the danger people like Obama pose to the security of this nation. He has us on a very dangerous path with respect to radical Islam and 2 years till he is out of office is a long time to wait with that kind of threat.

you are certainly allowed your satellite opinions, I simply do nor subscribe to them. Climte IS warming. It is warming measurably and is apparently accelerating. The "people at Penn State" did not lie. Alley's data from Ice cores is quite robust and represents some of the best data out there. Its been linked incorrectly with an unproven conclusion thus far.

When I stated that anthropogenic caused global warming is not a proven fact, I did not mean that human kind is off the hook.We are clearly at a confluence of a series of global cycles that, combined with a sunspot minimum, has made the entire game of "Climate prediction" suspect. I think the climate change deniers are as equally clustered around a political belief . Their beliefs are well discussed in the March 2015 National Geographic cover article about "Sciience Denialism". (I invite you to read the article)

When you cluster "Obama hatred" with climate denial, youre in your own private playland so please don't include me in your list of those other gripes. I don't buy em. You begin to sound like Rudy or the Donald when you get all hair- burning excited about a president who, in my mind has waaay more successes than defeats. Remember the crap spread by "Birthers" or the " GOP Death panels"? were those based on facts and evidence??

Im merely looking to sound science to help separate fact from fairy tales. Jumping on a band wagon for or against the cause of global warming (and its duration) has , sadly, become more a platform plank for either side and any chances for good dialogue (and needed research funding) seems to be lost among all the bumper stickers.

"Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, came under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the “trick of adding in the real temps to each series … to hide the decline [in temperature].”

Three are emerged from the Penn state emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.


And you base this on what science?

Funny you should mention the sunspot minimum. I'm quite familar with the Maunder Minimum.

"According to the latest IPCC report, AR5, the influence of the sun on our climate since pre-industrial times, in terms of radiative forcing, is very small compared to the effect of greenhouse gases.

According to some more skeptical scientists such a small solar influence is counterintuitive. The Little Ice Age, the period roughly from 1350 to 1850, in which winters on the Northern Hemisphere could be severe and glaciers advanced, coincided with the so-called Maunder Minimum, a period of supposedly low solar activity. In their eyes, the sun therefore still is a serious candidate to also explain a substantial part of the warming since pre-industrial times.

Sunspot records since 1600 suggest there has been a considerable increase in solar activity in the 20th century leading to a Grand Solar Maximum or Modern Maximum. However recently these sunspot records have come under increasing scrutiny and newer reconstructions show a much ‘flatter’ sunspot history. This challenges the idea of a Modern Maximum.

The current solar cycle 24 is the lowest sunspot cycle in 100 years and the third in a trend of diminishing sunspot cycles. Solar physicists expect cycle 25 to be even smaller than Cycle 24 and expect the sun to move into a new minimum, comparable with the Dalton or even the Maunder Minimum. Studying such a minimum with modern instruments could potentially answer a lot of the questions surrounding the influence of the sun on our climate."

I suggest you read Climatism! and refute the scientific conclusions.
There is plenty of evidence that we are in a slight cooling trend right now.

Also if there is global warming why did arctic ice increase 60% between 2012 and 2013?

FACT:
Sun activity not greenhouse gases is proven historically to drive temperatures and climate more than any other singular factor

FACT:
Non government or politically tainted (non IPCC related) studies confirm CO2 levels do not effect actual temperature changes instead FOLLOW temperature changes

FACT:
The pacific ocean has a warm temperature and cool temperature mode known as the 'Pacific Decadal Oscillation' or PDO. This PDO index measured since 1900 shows both warm and cool periods of the ocean floor and shows that we are now in a cool (not warming) mode since 1998

Shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from its warm mode to cool mode assures global cooling for the next three decades.

FACT:
CO2 makes up an insignificant percentage (only about .054%) of atmospheric gases

FACT:
The oceans and volcano eruption contribution to CO2 far outweighs the contribution from humans

Im not aware of a Dr Mann . I know R Alley's work and his has been undisputed. Please don't try to generalize about an institution even if it is true that a member has done something suspect. SCience will take care of itself pretty well. The climate deniers (those that deny the veru existence of climate change) are quite guilty of ******* over truth and evidence just to fit some agenda in politics.

This joker peddles his bullshit all the time without offering a shred of evidence, and, apparently, expects to be believed just because he says so.

Ive read all of Gorhams stuff and found it entertaining although not scientifically robust.
He dismisses the entire concept as chicken littling over natural events. I tend to agree with the concept that warming may just be a comple of intersecting planetary/solar cycles. However, fro the geologic record we need to not dismiss the consequences of stubbornly maintaining our beachfronts and wasting huge amounts of capital on bulkheads , groind, tidal controls and other sorts of things. Even the "Low Countries" have a plan for orderly retreats.
Gorham represents a kind of voice of the Heartlnd Institute and sorry, but that's like the "Creation MUseum" in my mind. Anything funded by the Kochs, the AMandsens, and Pizza Hut is immediately suspect for its bullshit content.

The very facts that gunga claims were in a second LIA is an example of fact-free assertion, don't you think?
As Walter stated, the Eastern US does not define the planets climate for a single season.