Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
I figure since doug and the G-8 feel the need to make massive changes to correct as Doug said "MAN MADE WARMING" this is a pretty timely Article...Oh and are those people at the G-8 Summit "Politicians!!?!?" Yea I believe them....lol....

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

June 29, 1:51 PM
Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

With a mostly sunny afternoon and bearable humidity levels today, there is little to talk about regarding our current weather. On days like today, I enjoy browsing weather forums and other weather websites for a topic to talk about and in doing so I came upon an article written by Gregory F. Fegel, which to me, has real insight into what is happening with our global climate situation. I am a true believer, that climate happens in cycles, with global warming being no different, so enjoy the read and maybe your opinion of Global Warming, when looking at the overall climate picture, will change just like the weather.


"The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years. Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years. Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.


Elements of the astronomical theory of Ice Age causation were first presented by the French mathematician Joseph Adhemar in 1842, it was developed further by the English prodigy Joseph Croll in 1875, and the theory was established in its present form by the Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovich in the 1920s and 30s. In 1976 the prestigious journal “Science” published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled “Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” which described the correlation which the trio of scientist/authors had found between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles. Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has remained the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate scientists, and hence the Milankovich theory is always described in textbooks of climatology and in encyclopedia articles about the Ice Ages.


In their 1976 paper Imbrie, Hays, and Shackleton wrote that their own climate forecasts, which were based on sea-sediment cores and the Milankovich cycles, "… must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted... the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate."
During the 1970s the famous American astronomer Carl Sagan and other scientists began promoting the theory that ‘greenhouse gasses’ such as carbon dioxide, or CO2, produced by human industries could lead to catastrophic global warming. Since the 1970s the theory of ‘anthropogenic global warming’ (AGW) has gradually become accepted as fact by most of the academic establishment, and their acceptance of AGW has inspired a global movement to encourage governments to make pivotal changes to prevent the worsening of AGW.


The central piece of evidence that is cited in support of the AGW theory is the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph which was presented by Al Gore in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.” The ‘hockey stick’ graph shows an acute upward spike in global temperatures which began during the 1970s and continued through the winter of 2006/07. However, this warming trend was interrupted when the winter of 2007/8 delivered the deepest snow cover to the Northern Hemisphere since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001. It now appears that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures.

The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years -- evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials. In 1999 the British journal “Nature” published the results of data derived from glacial ice cores collected at the Russia’s Vostok station in Antarctica during the 1990s. The Vostok ice core data includes a record of global atmospheric temperatures, atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and airborne particulates starting from 420,000 years ago and continuing through history up to our present time.


The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing. The Vostok data graph also shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years. What that indicates is that global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse. In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise.

The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global temperature is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. That is why carbonated beverages loose their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their ‘fizz’, which is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content. The earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice Age cycle, and as the oceans get warmer, they release increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Because the release of CO2 by the warming oceans lags behind the changes in the earth’s temperature, we should expect to see global CO2 levels continue to rise for another eight hundred years after the end of the earth’s current Interglacial warm period. We should already be eight hundred years into the coming Ice Age before global CO2 levels begin to drop in response to the increased chilling of the world’s oceans. The Vostok ice core data graph reveals that global CO2 levels regularly rose and fell in a direct response to the natural cycle of Ice Age minimums and maximums during the past four hundred and twenty thousand years. Within that natural cycle, about every 110,000 years global temperatures, followed by global CO2 levels, have peaked at approximately the same levels which they are at today.


Today we are again at the peak, and near to the end, of a warm interglacial, and the earth is now due to enter the next Ice Age. If we are lucky, we may have a few years to prepare for it. The Ice Age will return, as it always has, in its regular and natural cycle, with or without any influence from the effects of AGW. The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change. The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable
 

DougTravels

Not a Member
I figure since doug and the G-8 feel the need to make massive changes to correct as Doug said "MAN MADE WARMING" this is a pretty timely Article...Oh and are those people at the G-8 Summit "Politicians!!?!?" Yea I believe them....lol....

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

June 29, 1:51 PM
Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

National Geographic is a pretty respectable source, then again since you are christian why would you believe in science.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I figure since doug and the G-8 feel the need to make massive changes to correct as Doug said "MAN MADE WARMING" this is a pretty timely Article...Oh and are those people at the G-8 Summit "Politicians!!?!?" Yea I believe them....lol....

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

June 29, 1:51 PM
Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

New ice age predictions go back to the '60's. They are for the most part correct. There will be another one. It will happen soon. Soon in "G" time of course.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Doug wrote:

why would you believe in science.

Science, you want to hear it from scientist?

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'


Posted: May 19, 2008
8:51 pm Eastern
31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily





More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.

But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.

"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson. Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later co-founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. He also publishes the Access to Energy newsletter.

WND submitted a request to Gore's office for comment but did not get a response.

Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.

"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he said.

In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by "global warming."

The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds."

"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.

Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on "global warming," officials said.

"The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries," Seitz wrote.

Robinson said the project targets scientists because, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice."

He said the "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

"Yet," he said, "the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher.

"The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged," he continued. "During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.

"These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity," he said. "Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.

"The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy," he said.

He told WND he believes the issue has nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration and development.

"In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom," he said.

The Petition Project website today said there are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.

In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.'s campaign to "vilify hydrocarbons," officials told WND.

"The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it," the organization noted.

The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters.

"In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists," the website said.

The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others "have claimed that the 'science is settled' – that an overwhelming 'consensus' of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement."

The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

The Petition Project's website includes both a list of scientists by name as well as a list of scientists by state.

By the way doug, i checked my folder on Climate Change/Global Warming, there is over 70 articles debunking it...so if you want to post a few more, I can cut and paste and for more then a few days to show them all....:D:D
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Doug wrote:



Science, you want to hear it from scientist?

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'


Posted: May 19, 2008
8:51 pm Eastern
31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily







By the way doug, i checked my folder on Climate Change/Global Warming, there is over 70 articles debunking it...so if you want to post a few more, I can cut and paste and for more then a few days to show them all....:D:D


I don't know that Doug would read them. Doug choses to buy only a party line and do as he is told. It appears, at least in here, that he choses to be ruled and controlled rather that research and question. Please Doug, if I am wrong, show me.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Here is another "Science" paper for you Doug, from the "Science and Public Policy Institue", it is 6 pages long and sayes there is NO Consensus among Climate Scientist that the is not over...so its too long to post here...but you might read it since it is Science.....:D

And Layout, I think you are right, its the Moveon.org propaganda he keeps spewing thats the give away...i guess while he sayes he doesn't go to their site, he just gets it from the msm that keeps it alive for those like him...:D

Global Warming Science and Public Policy - “Consensus”? What “Consensus”? Among Climate Scientists, The Debate Is Not Over
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Here is another "Science" paper for you Doug, from the "Science and Public Policy Institue", it is 6 pages long and sayes there is NO Consensus among Climate Scientist that the is not over...so its too long to post here...but you might read it since it is Science.....:D

And Layout, I think you are right, its the Moveon.org propaganda he keeps spewing thats the give away...i guess while he sayes he doesn't go to their site, he just gets it from the msm that keeps it alive for those like him...:D

Global Warming Science and Public Policy - “Consensus”? What “Consensus”? Among Climate Scientists, The Debate Is Not Over


It seems that he believes a party line, refuses to check it out on his own and expects others to follow that parties lead. I am NOT foolish enough. I will try my BEST to research this things. I ASSUME that the polititions are lying to me 95% of the time. I ASSUME that NO government can be trusted and the bigger a government gets the less it can be trusted.
 

DougTravels

Not a Member
Here is another "Science" paper for you Doug, from the "Science and Public Policy Institue", it is 6 pages long and sayes there is NO Consensus among Climate Scientist that the is not over...so its too long to post here...but you might read it since it is Science.....:D

And Layout, I think you are right, its the Moveon.org propaganda he keeps spewing thats the give away...i guess while he sayes he doesn't go to their site, he just gets it from the msm that keeps it alive for those like him...:D

Global Warming Science and Public Policy - “Consensus”? What “Consensus”? Among Climate Scientists, The Debate Is Not Over
Please find one example of me posting anything from moveon.org.
Good luck Chef, since I do not believe I have ever visited the site.
Most every thread I have started with an article is from AP or Reuters.
I do not frequent political sites.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
chef wrote:

he just gets it from the msm that keeps it alive for those like him...

doug wrote:

Most every thread I have started with an article is from AP or Reuters


ahhh doug, you do realize that "msm" means Main Stream Media, which would be AP and to a lesser extent Reuters......lol
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Please find one example of me posting anything from moveon.org.

doug,

the problem is that many people who seem to talk like a lefty (health care for all, tax the rich, world peace) seem to get their information from the same sources which are controlled by it seems the left. Moveon.org is a generic term used for most of the propaganda that is thrown out there as "the" suorce of news but because many of these new age media sources are funded by the same people who actually fund Moveon.org and Codepink, it makes it easier to lump the mind numbed people into one single group.

What makes matters worst is the main stream press which by all accounts supports the mis-information and the use of propaganda to make the people fall into line, don't get the systyem they are helping to tear down will be replaced by a system they will not like because they will become a target with no one to protect them. They are the ones who want to stop the iReporters of the world, the Web 2.0 bloggers because they feel threatened by the competition and they want to continue with their power trip. What matters is not what you read but how you think about it, if your mind is closed or open and how you perceived people - friend or foe. Most of the left, you know the health care for all, tax the rich, world peace crowd have very closed minds and literally refuse to debate or even read anything that is not sent to them via their implant in their head.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
doug,

the problem is that many people who seem to talk like a lefty (health care for all, tax the rich, world peace) seem to get their information from the same sources which are controlled by it seems the left. Moveon.org is a generic term used for most of the propaganda that is thrown out there as "the" suorce of news but because many of these new age media sources are funded by the same people who actually fund Moveon.org and Codepink, it makes it easier to lump the mind numbed people into one single group.

What makes matters worst is the main stream press which by all accounts supports the mis-information and the use of propaganda to make the people fall into line, don't get the systyem they are helping to tear down will be replaced by a system they will not like because they will become a target with no one to protect them. They are the ones who want to stop the iReporters of the world, the Web 2.0 bloggers because they feel threatened by the competition and they want to continue with their power trip. What matters is not what you read but how you think about it, if your mind is closed or open and how you perceived people - friend or foe. Most of the left, you know the health care for all, tax the rich, world peace crowd have very closed minds and literally refuse to debate or even read anything that is not sent to them via their implant in their head.

The problem is that Doug BELIEVES two things: ONE: the Dumb-O-Crats are kind and benevolent and only have his best interest in their hearts and TWO: Dumb-O-Crats NEVER lie or use "Fear tactics" like the ReBumLiCans do. Both assumptions are WRONG!!

Question everything!! Even your own beliefs. Trust only those who you know personally. Trust gevernment the least. Do NOT be so trusting of these putz's Doug, they are ONLY out for themselves. You ARE being lied to by BOTH parties all the time.

Just study the term "G" time and you will quickly see that the Dumb-O-Crats "Climate Change" scare is nothing more than a money grab and a means to further control you and your life. Follow the money. Look at Gore's investments in GE and Obama's ties to the "Joyce" group, both of which stand to make BILLIONS on this. Same with Nasty Nancy's investments. Same ole Same ole, no different than "Ties to big OIL" Remember that?
 
Top