Planning for an Ice Age? (wheat, grain, lakes, house)

[jetgraphics]

Anthropogenic Global Warmists are alarmed for the wrong reasons - we are heading into a "Little Ice Age"

From a Russian scientific paper published in APPLIED PHYSICS RESEARCH, this February - - -
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf
<> Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age <>

"From early 1990s the values of both eleven-year and bicentennial components of total solar irradiance (TSI) variations are decreasing at accelerating (at present) rate, and hence a fraction of TSI absorbed by the Earth is declining at practically the same rate....
the Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance (E<0) in the energy budget. This gradual consumption of solar energy accumulated by the World Ocean during the whole XX century will result in decrease of global temperature after 14±6 years because of a negative balance in the energy budget of the Earth. This, in its turn, will lead to ... a Little Ice Age in 2055±11."

======================================

Summed up - our yellow dwarf star is a wee bit variable in its output, and due to the ocean, the immediate effect is delayed, but the end result of the decrease in total solar irradiance is chilling.

What will YOU do differently if global temperatures keep dropping, as predicted?
[] Migrate to the "Sunbelt"?
[] Build superinsulated shelter (for extremes at either range)?
[] Build enclosures for growing food in case the climate goes bonkers?

[SCGranny]

Thank you for this!

My brother and I have been saying it for several years, since the whole 'global warming' hysteria started. We read/study documented historical cycles and compare data as a hobby. There have been several "Little Ice Age"s in recorded data, each with varying impacts on the human, plant, and animal species, dependent on location and adaptability.

Actually, though, world/sun cycles will have variable impacts depending on where one is, what the prevailing weather influences are, winds, La Nina, El Nino, how each shift in the jet stream as well as water flows like the Gulf Stream, etc, affect air and water flows. So precipitously fleeing to a hot and humid or equatorial "sun spot" might be a good idea - or, it might not. Less heat might mean less evaporation of moisture, which can change hot and dry microclimates into wetter if shorter growing seasons - or make already humid areas like Florida and the Gulf states more prone to shorter but more violent hurricane seasons. River floods could become more prevalent as a longer and more snowy winter causes sudden and heavy meltoffs in the spring. Dams could be stressed and there are all sorts of impacts to be considered there, including transportation and electrical generation. Less evaporation in those flooded areas could produce lakes in low-lying areas, or changes in river flows and routes, over time.

All in all, a Little Ice Age, like a "global warming" has to have a lot of varied influences; everything from the impact of less solar radiation on plants, animals, water, and air flows to increased erosion in the upper elevations due to high snow and ice levels - the 'benches' carved out of the Utah, Montana, and Idaho mountains indicate what an historic geographical impact mere ice can have. Snowfed aquifers could be renewed and refreshed more readily - or, depending on location, could dry up completely.

Any move that one makes based on weather data has to include all of the variables and considerations that are not only direct, but indirect and 'domino', if-then results of that data.

[RiverBird]

How do you explain this in relation to warming temperatures melting the polar regions? And warmer weather in winter in many parts that used to have real winters?

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

Anthropogenic Global Warmists are alarmed for the wrong reasons - we are heading into a "Little Ice Age"

From a Russian scientific paper published in APPLIED PHYSICS RESEARCH, this February - - -
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf
<> Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age <>

"From early 1990s the values of both eleven-year and bicentennial components of total solar irradiance (TSI) variations are decreasing at accelerating (at present) rate, and hence a fraction of TSI absorbed by the Earth is declining at practically the same rate....
the Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance (E<0) in the energy budget. This gradual consumption of solar energy accumulated by the World Ocean during the whole XX century will result in decrease of global temperature after 14±6 years because of a negative balance in the energy budget of the Earth. This, in its turn, will lead to ... a Little Ice Age in 2055±11."

======================================

Summed up - our yellow dwarf star is a wee bit variable in its output, and due to the ocean, the immediate effect is delayed, but the end result of the decrease in total solar irradiance is chilling.

What will YOU do differently if global temperatures keep dropping, as predicted?
[] Migrate to the "Sunbelt"?
[] Build superinsulated shelter (for extremes at either range)?
[] Build enclosures for growing food in case the climate goes bonkers?

[vaughanwilliams]

Little Ice Age? I wish-it's been 80 degrees around here for almost a week and I'm sick of it already.

[waitingtundra]

The little ice age never made it to Louisiana this winter. The grass is green and needing cutting and everythang is blooming.

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by newenglandgirl

How do you explain this in relation to warming temperatures melting the polar regions? And warmer weather in winter in many parts that used to have real winters?

//Rant on

I explain it by looking at even a very small chunk of the earth's geological and/or climatological history. Did you know that regions such as Greenland were once fairly tropical? There was no ice there at all. Of course, this was before our species' time on the planet. But even since we've been around, Greenland has sustained some agriculture during certain cycles. Try that now. See what kind of growing season you'll get there even with the "man-made global warming."

It's flabbergasting to me that people take a climate cycle of a couple of decades, which is but a grain of sand on the beach that is our planet's history and treat it as though it's a big deal. It's not. It has happened a million times before. And it will continue to happen--this cycling climate. What's so hard to understand about that? Your grandchildren will be bellyaching (and trying to cash in on the fools who believe them when they say we are causing an Ice Age) about how cold the planet is getting. Their grandchildren will whine (once again) about how hot we're getting (and of course, cash in on the dolts once more).

Think of it this way: your temperatures cycle from warm to cool every day. Your temperatures cycle from warm to cool over the seasons every year. Is that because man is affecting the climate? No. So with all this cycling going on, why is it so damned inconceivable that the temperature means fluctuate and cycle over decades, centuries, or millennia? Even one small solar event would overshadow any effect we have on the climate a million times over. Honest to god, I don't see what's so hard to fathom about this concept. The concept that mean temperatures cycle over the years ON THEIR OWN whether we are here or not.

I thought the revelation of outright fabricated and skewed statistics would have put this fantasy to rest a couple of years back. But here we are still pretending that our planet's climate is supposed to be static--and trying to make a buck off from it.

There's a far more alarming trend these days. It's called "mental cooling."

//rant off


Thank you.

[jetgraphics]

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Nint...ink1.28.12.pdf
“How can you deny that man made global warming is real when 97 percent of climate scientists agree that it is true?”
.... The 97 percent figure is not what it appears to be.
" The survey question: When compared to pre-1800 levels, do you think mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant, was intentionally worded to elicit the response the authors wanted to hear. It was the intent of the question to get a response of “risen”.
" Amazingly the response was not 100%! In fact only 90% of the 3,146 answered “risen” to question one."
....
" Question number two is even more suspect. The question is: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? Of the 3,146 respondents only 82% answered yes to this question."
.....
BTW - The survey was sent to 10,257 scientists but only 3,146 scientists responded to the survey.

The 97% figure from the survey comes from a whittling down of the accepted number of responses from 3,146 to 79. The 79 scientists are those that said they have recently published 50% of their papers in the area of climate change.

So "97%" of 79 respondents, taken from 3,146 respondents of a pool of 10,257 scientists "AGREE" that man made global warming is real (which is a spin doctored conclusion!).

Global Warming Petition Project

" 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."

Petition signed by over 31,000 American scientists.

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Nint...ink1.28.12.pdf
“How can you deny that man made global warming is real when 97 percent of climate scientists agree that it is true?”
.... The 97 percent figure is not what it appears to be.
" The survey question: When compared to pre-1800 levels, do you think mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant, was intentionally worded to elicit the response the authors wanted to hear. It was the intent of the question to get a response of “risen”.

If that is not a loaded question, nothing is! Can't anyone else besides the two of us see that? YES, the mean global temperatures have generally risen as of late. That's obvious. But you never hear anyone asking a question like "Do you think this sort of thing has happened before?" or "Is this the norm over our climatological history?" or "Does the mean temperature rise and fall on it's own?"

We NEVER get questions like that being answered by all these high and mighty "experts." Why? Because it would disprove a religion--and a rather prosperous one at that.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

Anthropogenic Global Warmists are alarmed for the wrong reasons - we are heading into a "Little Ice Age"

What will YOU do differently if global temperatures keep dropping, as predicted?
[] Migrate to the "Sunbelt"?
[] Build superinsulated shelter (for extremes at either range)?
[] Build enclosures for growing food in case the climate goes bonkers?

Way to sensationalize nothing into something.

Allow me to present a little truth here. I've commented on the Little Ice Age before, mostly related to economics, but there are some interesting trivia related to it.

As shocking as it may be, the British Isles were plagued by mosquitoes and malaria. Two out of every three Britons carried the malaria virus. If you read contemporary literature, such as William Lily's Christian Astrology, he describes things like Quartan Fevers, Tertiary Fevers etc. Those are fevers associated with malaria. A tertiary fever is one that lasts 3 days and then breaks. A Quartan Fever lasts 4 days and then breaks.

The Little Ice Age killed all of the mosquitoes in the British Isles and they never returned and from the 1700's onward, Britain was never plagued by malaria again.

Things in the Colonies weren't so good however.

Basically, everything north of what is now Interstate 80 had a reduced growing season. In the New England colonies, the growing season was a mere 6 weeks long. Why? The ground froze and the fields couldn't be prepped or plowed. The 6-week growing season lasted from about mid-July to the end of August. Then the first frost came and then the ground started freezing again.

That area that is between what is now Interstate 70 and Interstate 80 had a slightly longer growing season, ranging from about 10 weeks to as much as 12 in the farther south you got.

Same reason. The ground was frozen and delayed prepping and plowing the fields, and the first frost came early.

This created near-famine conditions. Note that I did not say famine conditions, rather near-famine conditions.

Now, is everyone sitting down? Because we don't plow using horses any more. We use tractors. We're big people now. We can plow in places where no man could plow before.

Also (is everyone sitting down?) New England is no longer the bread-basket of America. Yes, it was at one time, a very, very long time ago, but not any more.

We also have Winter Wheat now.

Does that mean we get a pass? No. A mini-Ice Age will result in reduced crop yields the world over, but not to the extent that famine sets in. Will food prices rise? Oh, yes, they will definitely rise, and you might even see shortages of food stuffs, like tomatoes. Many fast-food restaurants in the US will be serving hamburgers sans tomato, or you'll have to pay extra for it.

Icing...

Mircea

Originally Posted by newenglandgirl

How do you explain this in relation to warming temperatures melting the polar regions? And warmer weather in winter in many parts that used to have real winters?

Oceans.

Like it or not, this is your real, true world:



Love the glaciers.

Not too long ago your Earth was very much like it is now. Why? Well, South America and North America were not joined. There was a gap there and ocean currents circulated through that gap.

Then about 26 Million years ago, that gap closed off when those tectonic plates moved north and formed the Panamanian Isthmus.

Ever since then, your Earth looked like that image: cold and desolate, with lots of glaciers.

I tried to find something on the web and this is the best thing I can find on the fly:



The Earth's orbit is eccentric and varies.

Now, this would be a sort of exaggerated depiction of the Earth's orbit:



Imagine the other planets aren't there, but the Earth moved into their apogees, and then treat the apogee as the perigee. So the Earth's orbit is not circular, it is an ellipsoid, and it is eccentric, with one point, the apogee being more or less fixed, and the perigee increasing and decreasing over a period of 100,000 years. That is the Mankovitch Cycle. As bizarre as it may sound, the Earth will reach maximum perigee sometime after December 21, 2012. At that time, the Earth will be closer to the Sun then at any point in recorded history. And from that point on, the Earth will begin to move farther away from the Sun very slowly over the next 50,000 years, until it starts moving closer and reaches maximum perigee again 100,000 years from now.

And yes, the Earth will be in a major Ice Age during the next 100,000 years, and once again return to Normal Earth.

Not only is the Earth closer to the Sun, but its inclination is decreasing. The obliquity is now 23°27' of arc. It now decreases at a rate of about 50" (seconds) or so of arc each century. Eventually, it will reach about 21°42' of arc (sometime around 11,500 CE).

This cycle of the Earth's axial tilt lasts 41,000 years and guess what?

The temperature of the Earth cools by 4° to 10° every 40,000 to 100,000 years, then warms again.

Why? Because there is a relationship between the Earth's axial tilt and the temperature of the oceans which determines the temperature of ocean currents, and it is the ocean currents that drive the weather on Earth.

Warmer ocean currents travel farther north, and that causes the polar ice cap to melt.

When UV rays from the Sun strike the oceans, one of two things happen: either the ocean absorbs the UV rays (and its energy and it heats up) or it reflects the UV rays back into space.

It is the angle of incidence in relation to albedo that determines what percent of UV rays are absorbed by the oceans or reflected.

Albedo is a measure of reflectivity. Water, sand, ice etc have high albedo and reflect UV rays. That is why you get tanned better on the beach or near water, because UV rays reflect off of the sand or water onto your skin.

Okay, so the Earth tilts 1 or 2 seconds of arc. That ain't much, but we are dealing with spherical geometry and 1 or 2 seconds of arc means thousands and thousands of square miles of ocean are now absorbing more UV rays instead of reflecting them back into space (or the opposite: reflecting more UV rays back into space and cooling the oceans). When the axial tilt is 1 minute of arc, that is hundreds of thousands of square miles of ocean absorbing more UV energy and heating up.

That's what La Nina and El Nino are all about.

Weathering...

Mircea

Originally Posted by ChrisC

If that is not a loaded question, nothing is! Can't anyone else besides the two of us see that? YES, the mean global temperatures have generally risen as of late. That's obvious. But you never hear anyone asking a question like "Do you think this sort of thing has happened before?" or "Is this the norm over our climatological history?" or "Does the mean temperature rise and fall on it's own?"

We NEVER get questions like that being answered by all these high and mighty "experts." Why? Because it would disprove a religion--and a rather prosperous one at that.

No doubt. Those people are like control freaks and think the Earth is their own personal private living room and should be 72° and partly sunny all year round.

Concurring...

Mircea

[hueyeats]

"No doubt. Those people are like control freaks and think the Earth is their own personal private living room and should be 72° and partly sunny all year round."

Concurring...

Mircea

^^^ITA!

P.S. NOONE, NO ONE is "entitled" to anything... even as a species (human) that "we" think should be the ones to control earth, we still aren't entitled to that control (may think we are God, but really we aren't).