Global Cooling Continues

Share with: Everybody. Sharing is caring, ya know.


Anecdotal, reported scientific findings from the last few years indicate a global cooling which has wiped out a century of global warming (you know, the one that happened after the mini ice age).
Here’s the full story and below is an excerpt:

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.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

Here’s another story about the coming ice age:

Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago — and it signaled a solar event known as a “Maunder Minimum,” along with the start of what we now call the “Little Ice Age.”


Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Share with: Everybody. Sharing is caring, ya know.


37 thoughts on “Global Cooling Continues

  1. But Victoria..

    Did you noticed the letters to the editor in the Oregonian that claimed that anyone who claim there was global cooling occuring was in denial?

    I am starting to think that Al Gore and the rest of the Eco-Freaks have started their own religion.. the Church of Global Warming.. and will lie and distort facts to bring in more faithful believers

  2. I believe that one of the theories on Global Warming actually does predict a mini-ice age in some areas?
    I know the NE United States is one of the areas predicted to experience cooling, due to global warming.

    Warming can lead to a mini ice age, as ice melts changing the temperature of the oceans, causing a shift in ocean currents.

  3. This is a Lie. There’s no Global Cooling going on. Were heating up much faster than predicted. Run for your lives.

    Oh and eileen nice to see there’s one sane fellow socialist on this blog besides myself. Good job.

    Al

  4. Thats the thing that I laugh at the most.. I am not a scientist.. but the subject to me is interesting.. No Matter what the weather dose.. No matter what the data shows… everything is now based on Global Warming.. a ICE AGE could happen and its because of Warming.

    But Eileen.. if what your saying is true.. then the Hockey Stick diagram in Al Gore’s movie is totally FALSE…

    Al Gore has created a new power base of sorts.. and not bad for a guy who almost failed his environmental class in college. Its not about the environment.. its about Control of the population.

  5. Here’s what Ken Tapping said recently, when asked about the portrayal of his views in some of the media:

    “It is true that the beginning of the next solar cycle is late, but not so late that we are getting worried, merely curious.

    “It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already. If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades. However, once again it is early days and we cannot at the moment conclude there is another minimum started.”

    Source: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/02/dont_trust_anything_you_read_i.php

  6. kitanis wrote:
    > Thats the thing that I laugh at
    > the most..
    > a ICE AGE could happen and its
    > because of Warming.

    Who would have thought it, climate is complex and not amenable to simplistic analysis.

    In fact, there are theories the global warming could lead to cooling in places: northern Europe is one of them, if the ocean currents that keep it warm were to diminish due to ice melt in the north Atlantic.

    There was some concern about this about 5 years ago, but scientists have backed off the theory in the last few years, as ocean salinity data shows this not happening at the moment.

  7. I did notice those letters Kitanis. Loved every one of them.
    And, you’re right, it IS a religion with them and you just saw George Taylor excommunicated.
    And Dave, Ken is confirming what so called “Deniers” have maintained all along: the sun’s activities play a role in the earth’s climate. But you won’t hear that from the Church of Global Warming.
    Glad to see you’re part of the group of skeptics of AGW.
    Also, Dave, the alarmists have been sounding an alarm IN SPITE of science showing OTHERWISE.
    They should be ashamed. This hasn’t been about science, it’s been about everything but.

  8. Victoria wrote:
    > you just saw George Taylor
    > excommunicated.

    Why do you continue to promulgate this untruth?

    Taylor himself has denied it, and admitted that he resigned of his own free will.

  9. Victoria wrote:
    > And Dave, Ken is confirming
    > what so called “Deniers”
    > have maintained
    > all along: the sun’s activities
    > play a role in the earth’s
    > climate. But you won’t hear that > from the
    > Church of Global Warming.

    You would hear it if you actually bothered to listen to what they say. You can begin with the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I, Chapter 2.7.1 titled “Solar Variability.”

    There, you will find that solar radiative forcing has been measured at 0.5 W/m2, several times less than that of human-produced greenhouse gases. And solar variance is only about 0.1%.

    Do you have competing numbers to cite, done by actual scientists?

    Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

  10. Victoria wrote:
    > Also, Dave, the alarmists have
    > been sounding an alarm IN SPITE
    > of science showing OTHERWISE.
    > They should be ashamed.
    > This hasn’t been about science,
    > it’s been about everything but.

    That’s quite a claim from someone who isn’t even familiar enough with the scientific literature to know that solar forcing has long been taken into account.

    (I mean, really, do you think scientists are idiots?)

    The fact is, the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming has been tested and retested. It has made several predictions that have come true over the years.

    That’s what science is–the testing of hypotheses. That’s what scientists do.

    You’re free to disagree with their conclusions, but you must refute their scientific arguments. What, Victoria, does your calculation show for the consequences of adding 35% to the atmosphere’s level of CO2?

    That’s a significant change for a planetary system. Such changes in the past have been found to have serious consequences.

    So, please, Victoria (or anyone here), present your own theory (or that of any skeptic’s) showing, scientifically, that such a change (and the many, many more percent increases to come) will have no effect on the planet — or even better, lead to cooling.

  11. Good News my fellow Democrats. I’ve been informed that my contacts within THE WEATHER CHANNEL
    say that there now Hiring, but and here’s the but you must be a Democrat and believe in our SOCIAL JUSTICE causes. If your a Republican and you Don’t Believe as we do, Well tough. Of course alot of you already know this from emails that Myself and the DNC have sent around.

    Thanks

    Al

  12. George Taylor says he left voluntarily. After he was stripped of his title and run out of town.
    David, you ignore the obvious. You ignore what he’s said on my show. You wilfully do it. No amount of pounding the table will change the circumstances. If you have a problem with it, talk to your Governor, the high priest of the global warming movement in Oregon, and the man who excommunicated Taylor.
    Look at the news accounts. You’re deluded.

  13. “Here’s the thing, David: Many of the folks who don’t believe that Global Warming is an issue also don’t believe in evolution. You can’t take them too seriously.”

    Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    Just as you have the right to believe in Evolution.. I have the right to Not believe in it. I respect your views but do not agree.. but I would take you seriously.

    That is the difference in your arguement Iknowhotospell

  14. “You would hear it if you actually bothered to listen to what they say. You can begin with the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I, Chapter 2.7.1 titled “Solar Variability.”

    There, you will find that solar radiative forcing has been measured at 0.5 W/m2, several times less than that of human-produced greenhouse gases. And solar variance is only about 0.1%.

    Do you have competing numbers to cite, done by actual scientists?”

    But Not all the IPCC scientists agree with its own report to the UN. Some have even complained that their names were put on the report without their agreement.. and some have changed their minds.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FormerArgentineIPCCmemberdoubtsman.pdf

    As you pointed out David.. nothing is absolute.

  15. kitanis, your URL does not work.

    You don’t have to go merely by the IPCC. You can also consult the National Academy of Sciences, innumerable Academies of Sciences of nations across the globe, the leading science journals of our time (Science, Nature), the American Geophysical Union, polls of peer-reviewed journals such as have been conducted by Naomi Oreskes of UCSD, etc.

    A few IPCC scientists might have changed their mind — science is certainly not static, or even unanimous — you can still find scientists who doubt Newton’s laws, if you look hard enough — although I notice you didn’t actually mention any names, which doesn’t speak very well for your case. (Nor does the fact that you post only anonymously. Can’t put your name where your mouth is? That’s pretty lame.) Nor did you mention names of who has complained their name was signed to the report against their will. Names, please? Proof?

    In any case, the ultimate test of a scientific hypothesis is whether its predictions have come true. Those of AGW have. Can you show me an alternate theory, anti-AGW, whose predictions have come true?

  16. iknowhowtospell said: Many of the folks who don’t believe that Global Warming is an issue also don’t believe in evolution.

    iknowhowtospell, please don’t insult me and my family. You humans
    are to stupid to have come from us.

  17. David.

    You can name all the institutions that you want.. I can counter with some there are against.

    But the issue is not if Global Warming is taking place or not.. the Issue to me is some of the draconian measures by the supporters of Global Warming to place on the population and against those who disagree with them. These below are extreme examples but the concept to ME is the same.

    A speaker in Canada suggested that politicians there who did not act or expressed doubts on global warming should be jailed.. period. That has been documented

    A student posted on a website that he was going to kill himself “to save the planet” as a experiment. Many supporters came out of the woodwork and made comments to this social website that what he suggested was “noble” and “Just”.

    In England.. a Global Warming Activist has suggested that Millions of Britons need to be put to death to avoid that country to contribute to man made global warming.

    Through all this lunacy in these events.. you want me to change my opinion.. Nope.. its not going to happen because I do not believe that changing our gas to Alcohol or forcing everyone to quit driving cars and live in large population communes is going to change the climate one Iota.. and I do NOT support Genocide of ANYONE on this planet for it.

    I still say I reserve the right to believe what I want,, if you don’t so be it. We agree to disagree

  18. David, I propose genocide as a solution to global warming. If everyone of you idiots who blame mankind for the warming would just kill yourselves, not only would THAT problem be solved, but also the incessant whining. Put your life where your mouth is. Kill yourself, and leave us in peace……sheesh.

  19. I thought that post might be deleted. So, for the sake of posterity, I saved it. Here you go! (I slightly edited it to make it nice for all of your innocent virgin ears who don’t like bad words.)

    *****************************

    kitanis wrote:
    > You can name all the
    > institutions that you want..
    > I can counter with some
    > there are against.

    So then, name them.

    > A speaker in Canada
    > suggested that politicians
    > there who did not act or
    > expressed doubts on global
    > warming should be jailed..
    > period. That has been
    > documented

    So what??? There are wackos everywhere, on all sides of the spectrum. He speaks for only himself.

    All that matters is the science.

    > you want me to change my
    > opinion.. Nope..

    I don’t really give a SHOTGUN BLAST TO THE FACE FROM DICK CHENEY about your opinion. You’re free to be ignorant if you want. But your lack of scientific reasoning and scientific proof is not acceptable, and should not be the basis for any policy decisions. You haven’t presented even a small challenge to the best scientific thought of our time. You just put your fingers in your ears and repeat, “Go away, go away, go away.” It is impossible to take you seriously, because there is just no intellectual heft to your argument.

    > and I do NOT support Genocide of > ANYONE on this planet for it.

    You are full of GEORGE BUSH’S LEGACY. No one has proposed genocide as a solution to global warming. Get your head out of your SEAN HANNITY.

    > I still say I reserve the
    > right to believe what I want,, if > you don’t so be it. We agree to
    > disagree

    I don’t agree to disagree. I see you as an ignoramous, who accepts science’s conclusions when it suits you (biomedicine, computer science, chemistry) but denies it when it scares you (climate science). But it’s clear to me you do not understand science and utterly lack any ability to argue or reason scientifically. So why should we give any credence to your opinion? You opinion is no more meaningful than my cat’s.

  20. Thanks Iknowhowtospell

    I noticed that Dave misses my point all together. But he is quite passionate in his opinions and wants to tout that “the science” is the key.. I respect what he is saying even though he took the path to insulting and cussing about it. Even if I do not agree.

    Science.. and fact. Most of the time they are correct.. but things change as well as opinons of it. Kind of like that for the longest time Pluto was considered a planet until recently and to this day there are astronomers who dispute the downgrading of object to a planetoid rating instead of a planet.

    Heres to everyone and having a opinion, it is always good.

  21. THE REAL AGENDA BEHIND GLOBAL WARMING

    1.Globalists Love Global Warming
    2.Global Warming Replaces 9/11 As Justification To Do Anything.
    3.Brits Could Be Forced To Give Up Meat, Milk To Fight Global Warming.
    4.What’s Next: A Breathing Tax?
    5.Europe Considers Banning Sports Cars For Global Warming.
    6.Brown wants ‘new world order’ to fight global warming.
    7.Enviro Mentalists Call For Culling Of Human Population.
    8.Trilateral Globalists Call For Gas Tax Hike.
    9.Families should have no more than two children – thinktank.
    10.Denver targets citizens in global warming fight.
    11.Denver’s green plan proposals called radical, ‘loony’ after hitting Web.
    12.Counting on Failure, Energy Chairman Floats Carbon Tax.
    13.Taxing Us for Breathing.
    14.Man-Made Global Warming Is Politics Not Science.
    15.Government Report: Bio-Weapons Could Be Used To Combat Overpopulation.

  22. kitanis, your link to the EPW Senate site…. you know that’s James Inhofe’s site, right? Are you aware of how much money Inhofe has received from the fossil fuel industry? He’s smack dab in the middle of the oil industry…. do you think maybe he’s influenced by that? Do you think maybe he’s been a little corrupted by corporate interests?

    If not, show me Inhofe’s theory of what happens to a planet whose GHGs increase by 35% over 150 years. Show me his calculations that show there shouldn’t be any effect.

  23. David. Of Course he is influenced by oil.. But he is NOT the only one.

    look at Hillary Clinton’s present campaign to be President.. can you believe that she is top among democrats to get contributions from oil and gas industries? From open secrets.org

    Oil and Gas.

    Hillary Clinton (D)$276,150
    Barack Obama (D) $157,390

    But to be fair..
    Jon McCain (R) got $283,285 from oil and gas so far so is ahead of both of them
    Your buddy.. James Inhofe.. $216,200 from Oil and Gas Inustries this year.

    So because the fossil fuel industries are NATURALLY going to contribute and try to influence a candidate… I am going to disbelieve a report to the senate or congress?

    I am with you when I say.. that after approximately 175+years of oil drilling in the US (1853 start of oil production started in Pennsylvania.) to now.. that someone has not discovered another cheaper and more environmentally friendly fuel that is cheap and will work without hampering present populations in the world.. but so far. that has NOT happened..

    Are you advocating that were going to shut down oil and gas companies cold turkey, throwing thousands of people out of work to avoid them from contributing to politicians?

  24. kitanis wrote:
    > So because the fossil fuel
    > industries are NATURALLY going to > contribute and try to influence a > candidate… I am going to
    > disbelieve a report to the senate > or congress?

    OF COURSE. The companies stand to make or lose *trillions* based on the climate policies of our government. Why WOULD you believe them? Do you not think they are advocating for their best interest, regardless of the science?

    > Are you advocating that were
    > going to shut down oil and gas
    > companies cold turkey, throwing
    > thousands of people out of work
    > to avoid them from contributing
    > to politicians?

    No, of course not. Of course not. Shutting down all oil and gas companies “cold turkey” would cause billions of people to live in a cold, primitive, unhealthy, unacceptable state. No one I’ve ever read wants that. That’s just a scare scenario painted by conservatives.

    But we do need to recognize that fossil fuel is dangerous to our planet, and that we need to transition to non-carbon sources of energy in the next decade, two decades, four decades, etc. It will be a long, gradual, continuous effort. It will be the biggest job creation engine in the history of civilization, a new Industrial Revolution. Many, many entrepreneurs will earn great wealth off of it–far more than will earn wealth off the old industries of oil and coal. Many, many workers will earn a very good living off of it.

    If not, the costs global warming are going to overwhelm us. A 3-6 deg C increase in temperatures would affect all of society — agriculture, ecosystems, health, and more.

    Do you really want to protect an old industry — one that is going to die with the coming of peak oil anyway — when far more efficient, clean technologies are in our grasp?

    I predict that your grandchildren will be enormously grateful that our society had the courage to move from fossil fuels to non-carbon sources of energy production. They will live in a far cleaner, more efficient world. Our world, to them, will look like the 1880s look to us–dirty, crude, inefficient, unthinkable….

  25. Young David you need to come back to our church of Global Warming. You seem so to stressed out. These Right Wingers will never believe us.Don’t bother with them. They can believe what they want and we will believe what we want. Come back to Church david. We probably cannot legislate this on Right Wingers and the rest of the World.

  26. “we need to transition to non-carbon sources of energy in the next decade, two decades, four decades, etc”

    “Many, many entrepreneurs will earn great wealth off of it–far more than will earn wealth off the old industries of oil and coal”. Many, many workers will earn a very good living off of it.”

    This in itself dose not encourage me.. you stated earlier that Oil and Gas make more money than you believe is right and uses it to influence politicians. These same entrepreneurs will do the same.

    As for these technologies.. you might have something in the future.. But many of the recent proposed developments have severe restrictions to city dwellers. The new technologies must be able to apply to all populations.

    but alot of what you typed looks like what people were writing at the turn of the century from the 19th to the 20th about industry… time will tell if this is true in the 21st

  27. “like what?”

    Well for One.. Plug-In Hybrid technology. Sounds great.. a Hybrid vehicle that you can plug in to charge the battery over night.

    The problem is.. this solution works great for built up urban areas but you are still using fuel when your charge runs out to keep the batteries charged. In Urban areas.. the ranges people drive would drain the estimated range of the plug-in would effectively turn the advantages to one of a regular Hybrid vehicle at a estimated $2-4 thousand increase in price (Based on the Toyota vehicle companies estimate on the additional cost of the technology).

    In my own apartment complex.. how would i “plug-in” my vehicle to overnight charge my batteries? How much more electrical generation would this country need to produce to help supply the load to take advantage of this and from which sources? Oh well.. its one example.

  28. kitanis wrote:
    > In my own apartment complex.. how
    > would i “plug-in” my vehicle to
    > overnight charge my batteries?

    I suppose you could plug it into a receptacle in the outer wall.

    But you’re right — this is often not a solution to climate change. One must generate the electricity, after all, which too often relies on fossil fuels.

    Scientists readily acknowledge this. Where have they not? Do you really think they’re that stupid? I mean, come one.

    We need to generate the electricity from non-carbon sources: nuclear, wind, solar, etc.

    These problems must be solved. The fact that they are difficult is not a reason against anthropogenic global warming. AGW is a conclusion of atmospheric physics and chemistry. It tells us that we need to generate power in a non-carbon way. After that, it’s up to the policy-makers in our society to do their part.

    I don’t understand why you’re against the science of AGW — merely because it is inconvenient?

  29. “Here’s the thing, David: Many of the folks who don’t believe that Global Warming is an issue also don’t believe in evolution. You can’t take them too seriously.”

    iknowhowtospell, I really hope you meant to be satirical with that comment. I just can’t begin to describe what’s wrong with trying to counter an argument with a “well, you’re wrong because you believe this” type of response. What does that have to do with anything? I could believe that the pyramids were built by snake-like aliens that travel in pyramid-shaped motherships but that doesn’t mean that I’m automatically wrong in the belief that a fetus is a person deserving the protection of law. An argument deserves refutation on its own merits, not the merits of the person who’s presenting the argument.

  30. “I don’t really give a SHOTGUN
    BLAST TO THE FACE FROM DICK CHENEY about your opinion. You’re free to be ignorant if you want. But your lack of scientific reasoning and scientific proof is not acceptable, and should not be the basis for any policy decisions. You haven’t presented even a small challenge to the best scientific thought of our time. You just put your fingers in your ears and repeat, “Go away, go away, go away.” It is impossible to take you seriously, because there is just no intellectual heft to your argument.”

    Fair enough. I’ll pick up the gauntlet you threw down, if you don’t mind.
    First, it is said that in the 90’s, average global temperature, as reported by ground monitoring stations, went up. In the 10-year span between 1990 and 2000, approximately 6000 temperature monitoring stations in Russia, primarily in Siberia, went offline. Guess what happens to an average when you eliminate a bunch of the low numbers? The average goes up. So the 90’s rise in temperature is poor evidence of global warming.
    Secondly, if you’re going by the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change, it’s worth noting that while the 1995 report includes the significant temperature drop of the “Little Ice Age”, the 2001 report does not. If you eliminate a period of notable cold from your historical measurements, it would indicate a warming trend where none exists.
    Thirdly, the reports about Arctic ice melting and imperiling polar bears are erroneous, as reported by Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato Institute, citing Rajmund Przybylak (“Variability of Air Temperature and Atmospheric Precipitation in the Arctic”).
    Fourthly… oh, bah. I could probably continue citing examples and refutations at you for a while yet but I’ll just leave it at three for now. I’d be eager and willing to submit a more extensive list of refutations and objections to you if you’d like. Either contact me at the email address attached to my blog username, patience_and_gk@yahoo.com or kemo@pdx.edu. I await your email, iknowhowtospell.

    “You are full of GEORGE BUSH’S LEGACY. No one has proposed genocide as a solution to global warming. Get your head out of your SEAN HANNITY.”

    First, clever substitutions. 🙂 Second, no one has directly proposed genocide as a solution to global warming but the anthropogentic global warming argument is advanced by the same folks who’ve held that all environmental problems can be traced back to excess population (i.e. “The Population Bomb”). When you have a person who says that population is the cause of all problems, what solution other than reducing the population is implied? The solution to too much of something is to reduce the amount of that something. Is this somehow faulty logic to you?

    “But it’s clear to me you do not understand science and utterly lack any ability to argue or reason scientifically. So why should we give any credence to your opinion? You opinion is no more meaningful than my cat’s.”

    Painful as it is, I have to admit that your point in this instance is valid.

Comments are closed.