Now About The Coming Ice Age

The MV Akademik Shokalskiy aka Ship of Fools icebound in Antartica. Expedition leader Chris Turney apart from being a warming alarmist scientist also has business interests in a company called Carbonscape which promotes Green products.

The MV Akademik Shokalskiy aka Ship of Fools icebound in Antartica. Expedition leader Chris Turney apart from being a warming alarmist scientist also has business interests in a company called Carbonscape which promotes Green products.

The whole world has had a chance to have a long laugh at the antics of a bunch of warming alarmists scientists and Green propagandists from the BBC and The Guardian getting trapped in Antarctic sea ice.

The stupidity and religious belief in their own propaganda got these Green fools into a mess of their own making, which has happily ended with no loss of life or injury, just a huge amount of carbon pollution from dirty ships bunker fuel, and aviation emissions from the Chinese helicopter that rescued the fools.

The explanations as to why the ice was so thick have ranged from the ludicrous “Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change but here it is building up“, once the global laughter had died down Turney admitted it was weather not climate that had caused the huge build up in Antarctic sea ice.

So the big question is are we headed for a new ice age?

The first part of the question revolves around the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC which provides the scientific data to push the case of the UNFCCC which runs the annual UN Climate Circus meetings, or Conference of the Parties (COP).

The IPCC is pushed by all those complicit in the Anthropogenic Global Warming boondoggle as the foremost scientific authority on Climate Change, which is all well and good until you look at the IPCC’s charter:

to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation

In other words ignore all natural climate change and blame western industrialised society for everything, the IPCC is there purely to provide heavily politicised pseudo scientific data to further the aims and ambitions of the UNFCCC.

Be in no doubt the whole point of the AGW fear mongering has always been a political agenda masquerading as a climate crisis caused by man.

Even the scientists at the IPCC are getting with a reality at last, not their erroneously computer modeled fantasy world, when they attempted to release a report that was subsequently quashed by the UNFCCC that admitted that the UN’s climate model was wrong.

The problem for the UNFCCC and Green narrative about the massive reduction in Arctic and Antarctic ice, is that it is yet another lie, both are increasing in area and thickness.

This may or may not be good news according to a Danish scientist:

The fact that Arctic ice is growing may not be the good news that it seems to be. There are signs that the Earth is entering a very unpleasant cooling period. Sunspot activity remains very low.

“The sun has been very unusual for almost 15 years now,” Jens Pedersen, senior scientist at the Denmark’s Technical University, said.

Pedersen said the sun recently reached solar maximum and that there should be a lot of sunspot activity, but there isn’t.

“We have to go back 100 years to find a solar maximum that was as weak as the one we are in right now,” he told CBN News. “And the recent solar minimum…one has to go back 200 years to find one that was as weak.”

The last time sunspot activity was this low was during what is known as the Maunder Minimum, roughly between 1645 – 1800 when the Little Ice Age caused freezing winters, the River Thames regularly froze and millions died of starvation as crops failed.

Pedersen said climate scientists know the Earth stopped warming 15 years ago. But the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, of which Pedersen is an expert reviewer, suppressed a recent report from its own scientists that the U.N.’s climate model has been proven wrong.

“In particular one of the issues has been why global warming has stopped during the last 15 years, and climate scientists were very frank that the climate models do not match the climate we observe,” Pedersen said.

But politicians removed that embarrassing finding from the final draft. It’s as if the alleged danger from climate change can’t be wrong because it is now too important.

Things must be pretty bad at the IPCC when a senior reviewer breaks ranks to admit what many of us have been writing about for years, the science is politicised junk and the threat from CO2 a fantasy.

The implications are however serious, the historical evidence shows that the big orange ball in the sky is the main driver of weather and thus climate on planet Earth.

Historical evidence again shows that low sun spot activity leads to lower temperatures and with the world possibly approaching another ice age, should the UN be ignoring the real observed empirical evidence and be forcing the world to adapt to rising temperatures that are not coming anytime soon, and have been static for at least the last 15 years.

Oh, and the missing heat hiding in the deep oceans factoid, check out the laws of thermodynamics and wonder how this could be possible.

About Tory Aardvark

Climate Realist, Conservative and proud NRA member. I don't buy into the Man Made Global Warming Scam, science is never settled. @ToryAardvark on Twitter ToryAardvark on Facebook

Posted on January 8, 2014, in Anthropogenic Global Warming, Church Of Climatology, Climate Change, Climategate, Climategate 2, Fear, Global Warming, Green Jobs Lie, Green Lies, Green Subsidy, Green Taxation, IPCC, Junk Science, ManBearPig, Oh FFS and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 20 Comments.

  1. I always wondered how they managed to get all of that warm water to sink to the bottom of the ocean. My experience has always been, that the deeper I dove into the water, the colder it got. Guess lefties have different experiences altogether. Life in their world seems very strange, indeed.

  2. The politics is well known…

  3. It does not matter how much fact you give to these Global Warming Scam Artists, they keep trying to stick this vile lies so some of it sticks to the imbeciles. Moreover there are over 300 million imbeciles in America.

  4. There is now conclusive proof of global warming. Look at Chicago, it is almost as warm as Antarctica.

  5. Thanks for the article.

    So to summarise, the IPCC are fools because the changes in climate are linked to the Sun, not any garbage about CO2 etc., it is just Sun activity. And because the Sun activity is so remarkable low (and has been for fifteen years), we are heading for a new ice-age. All makes sense.

    Oh wait, just one small point which it would be good if you could explain, if the changes in the climate are just being influenced by the low activity in the Sun, why have nine of the ten warmest recorded years been in the past fifteen years of low Sun activity? Or should I not concern myself with that?

    • @Greg

      After about 80 years of the most extreme solar activity to hit the planet that we know of, you expect the temperature to just change back overnight? Seriously?

      • I don’t claim to have the answers here, and don’t see where your “80 years” fits in. As I said though, the finger is being pointed at the Sun in this article for the recent build up of arctic ice, caused by a reduction in sun activity over the past 15 years (not 80).

        I just don’t see how the unusually low sun activity is responsible the recent build up of ice, and the recent record yearly temperatures at the same time.

        If the answer is staring me in the face, I genuinely can’t see it which is why I asked.

    • First, you keep saying it has been “15 years” of low sun activity – that isn’t reality

      As I said, we have been getting pounded by the sun, which has been at its absolute max for about the last 80 years …how odd all the warming has been seen over that exact period of time, huh?

      Anyway, go find a graph showing PDO/AMO+Solar.

      Then find a solar activity chart and take a look at what happened during some of the other periods with an inactive sun

      • Hi Darkstar. Sorry, I am just going by what this article says. Pederson talks about 15 years of “unusual sun activity”, as mentioned above. In fact, it talks about the weakest Solar Maximum for 100 years, and the last Solar Minimum being the weakest for 200 years. As Solar cycles are actually eleven years long on average, then I guess he means that “unusual” is “weak” for at least 11 out of those 15 years. Maybe he only means 11, maybe “unusual” means weak for those 11 and strong for other four (of the 15 years of unusual activity). Who knows? Well, I guess Pederson does, but “unusual” isn’t particular informative right.

        So, Pederson says that for the past 11 years at least (and maybe 15 by implication), the Sun has been the weakest for at least a hundred years (or two hundred), and that is apparently why there is more ice in the arctic and why we are heading or an ice-age (or something).

        So if, as Pederson and this article say, the Sun activity is weak at the moment, why have nine of the hottest recorded years been seen during that time?

        You may be right about the 80 years. Maybe we are getting “pounded by the Sun”, and I am not saying you are wrong, but that isn’t what the article (and Pederson) say. So I guess the question is for anyone who believes this article (and Pederson).

      • Not sure why Pederson said 15 years. The previous cycle (23) was lower then the ones prior, but not drastically.

        …Now, Cycle 24 though, that is a different matter. It started in 2008 (7 years ago) – and it has been both odd and weak – to the point that many people are talking about the possibility we are likely starting/about to start a Dalton Minimum-like cycle (about 40 years) at best, a Maunder Minimum (70-80 years) like cycle at (hopefully) worst

        Included in those talking about the possibilities… NASA, who stated:
        “Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. “
        (There is their complete article, where they even talk about many scientists starting to pay attention to the Sun again with regard to climate, seeing it is the “main source of heat for our planet” …And they only threw one foolish bone to the Warmists dogs – one that didn’t even make that much sense considering all the “warming” has been more regional then Global just the same. Plus they talk about the Sun likely creating more water vapor – the very GHG that is much, much, much more likely to cause warming then CO2. Ironic. Anyway, getting back on track…)

        As far as the current situations of the Oceans; the PDO is Cool while the AMO is roughly halfway through its Warm (it seems to be peaking).

        If we are looking at a future of the AMO cooling from its peak/flipping, the PDO probably staying Cool a while longer and the Sun very likely to experience a period of minimal activity – well that could quite easily trigger a Mini Ice Age

        (has some Warmists thinking, at least)

        Now while that covers the talk of the future, your question about the recent stagnant rising is answered, again, by saying the Sun hasn’t been that weak over Cycle 23 and was at an overall roughly 80 years of extreme activity, the AMO was warming towards its peak and only the PDO was turning Cool (but not consistently) over that time. With the Ocean Cycles and 80 years of being hit by massive amounts of radiation from the Sun (meaning the Earth was quite likely holding some heat) you have an easily explainable leveling off of temperatures (creating a roughly 20-year Plateau after the 1985-1997 warming before the Cooling we are quite possibly about to experience)

        That is the results of PDO/AMO+Solar (R²=.96) over the recent past
        … and if everything is lining up as it looks to be, then you can quite possibly take the current Red line on this following graph and put it right back down from where it came

  6. Are we headed for another ice age? We certainly are, as soon as the greenies figure out a way to blame it on the western economies, and thus have a reason to shut those economies down. When that scare story no longer works, it’ll be global warming again.

  7. the ”reason” why GLOBAL warming stopped for the last 15years is because lots of people are scrutinizing the data = getting difficult to massage the data….

    the truth: there was no global warming even before that; only during the confusion in the 80’s (going from global cooling propaganda to global warming; was easy for the original manipulators to massage the numbers. Otherwise the ”overall” temp is always the same!

  8. @Darkstar,

    I can’t actually reply to your last post for some reason (maybe it doesn’t like replies nested further than that). The longer term cycles of the Sun is possibly the most interesting thing I have heard from a card carrying member of the tin-foil hat brigade (no offense 🙂 ), and actually worth a bit more reading.

    Obviously, I assume there is a more than a simple 80-100 year correlation here between the rise in temperatures we continue to see and the Sun activity, and it will be interesting to do a little digging (perhaps going into temperature variations with other maunder minimums)!

    • You didnt know the Sun has multiple cycles? Seriously?

      Yeah, check out the Mins/Maxs and what they have consistently done to earths temperatures – and make sure you get all the big ones! Including these:

      Homeric Minimum 950BC-800BC
      Oort Minimum (the Medieval Warm Period) 1040-1080
      Medieval Maximum (the Medieval Warm Period) 1100-1250
      Wolf Minimum 1280-1350
      Spörer Minimum 1450-1550
      Maunder Minimum 1645-1715
      Dalton Minimum 1790-1820
      Modern Maximum (the Modern Warm Period) 1900-present

      Then go ahead, match the years with the Ice Core data

      …you’ll see a mindblowingly remarkable thing happens; sun active = hotter, sun inactive = colder. I know, its damn near rocket science, and its much, much, much too difficult for the “CO2 did it” crowd to catch (besides, they are busy desperately trying to prove their “man MUST have done it” desires and defending themselves against the endless evedence doctoring/suppressing scandals that come with the “settled science” they believe in – plus, they still have to figure out new ways of “adjusting” and “reconstructing” data to show the 0000a-0100s, 1000s-1100s and 1940s (amoung others) were somehow not as hot as they were, so then we can say today is like the hottest hot that hotted ever or whatever… that kinda stuff will keep ya too busy to recognize reality around you, I guess)

      So anyway, yeah, just like the 400+ million years prior to 1980s, the Sun & Oceans still control temperatures. And not only that, but they do it with extreme accuracy to what we actually observe (no matter how serial the warmists are about it just magically stopping to do so in 1985. …seriously though, how can anyone really believe that nonsense anyway? “400 Million years be damned, Michael Mann said that it is all different now and he has this cool hockey stick graph and everything, and well that makes sense because I saw it on a graph and there was a scary hockey stick I could totally see for myself”… seriously?)

      • Yes I did! I haven’t seen them seriously used as justification for the climate change (the sun is normally used in the same breath as volcanoes, so “it is the sun”, then when challenged, “is is volcanoes!”. I don’t think anyone would argue that an increase in sun activity would lead to higher temperatures, but the question is whether it is a small part of the reason, for a large part. It is correlation or causality?

        Just like CO2 really. I don’t see how anyone can say that rising CO2 has no effect either, the question should also be “how much”. Unless someone is prepared to accept that CO2 behaves completely differently in the atmosphere than it does in a lab.

      • @Greg,

        “I don’t think anyone would argue that an increase in sun activity would lead to higher temperatures, but the question is whether it is a small part of the reason, for a large part. It is correlation or causality? “

        Well there are endless such papers out there, dating back many years. The Alarmist side largely doesn’t want anyone to know about them, but they still exist. There are some from authors who even believe in some kind of CO2 warming, that say stuff like
        Under this scenario the Sun might have contributed up to approximately 50% (or more if ACRIM total solar irradiance satellite composite (Willson and Mordvinov, 2003) is implemented) of the observed global warming since 1900

        Click to access 2007JD008437.pdf

        …but the overall Alarmist (especially those still getting paid by Governments, and even more especially those working at an IPCC that was set up solely because “Man” was damaging the planet – an IPCC which wouldn’t even need to be around if Man wasn’t doing just that; hence all of their interest solely focused on what Man must have created) side wants to quash such studies

        Just like CO2 really. I don’t see how anyone can say that rising CO2 has no effect either, the question should also be “how much”. Unless someone is prepared to accept that CO2 behaves completely differently in the atmosphere than it does in a lab.

        Okay, well if the quote above is correct, then the 0.6 Rise since 1900 now becomes 0.3 or lower due to CO2. And that is only the Sun aspect. There is an extreme correlation between Ocean Oscillation and Temps as well. The fact that not a single one of the Climate Models includes the Ocean Oscillations is a huge portion of why they are all pitifully incorrect. Just recently Alarmists has been waking up to the OCs though, in a pitiful attempt to explain the “pause”

        In that, the PDO is used to explain how the Pause is likely caused by the PDO, and they point out that the PDO is likely responsible for the “Global Cooling” (as it was then called, at least) of the 70s. They include this graph for that explanation

        What they (somehow) stop short of recognizing, almost as if they desperately didn’t want to …the Warming corresponds to the PDO as well. In their explanation to excuse away the “pause” of Warming, they inadvertently showed (but didn’t acknowledge) that all changes are driven by their newly discovered explanation. (but not a new theory, in any way possible, as it has been used by Skeptics for 20 or more years. Good thing the Alarmist side insisted on attacking, discrediting and ignoring the Skeptics over that whole periods – otherwise they might have learned something about reality a long time ago, and that would have been horrible! …for their grants, at least)

        Getting back on track… So we have the Sun being worth about half of it (if not more), and the Ocean Oscillations probably worth about half of it (if not more) itself. We are down to at least 0.0 Warming by CO2. Let’s be generous and say there is a margin of error in those calculations and the collection of data though, and we will leave it as…

        Sure, CO2 might result in 0.01-0.1 degree per Century of warming, maybe. (as most all Skeptics have allowed for – none of them say “no impact”, we all say “an unknown minimal impact”) That would allow for your lab experiment to be correct, as well as allow for the real drivers of the Climate. That would explain why the Models have been laughably incorrect (1.1 Degree off current temperatures) and better fit historical records showing CO2 rises after warming but is always eventually overpowered by the Earths natural cycles (otherwise temperatures would have never gone down out of those rises over the last 400 million years) It would even explain why “Global Warming” has been much, much, much more localized than “global” the entire time, with the two halves of the planets rising at two completely separate times (including the South Pole specifically being on a Downward trend since Satellite data began in 1979 – yeah, it has lost a fraction of a percentage of temperature since 1979. “Global Warming” was never “global”, and they knew that)

        But what it also means if there is no such thing as “catastrophic” warming, there is no “tipping point”, there is no “point of no return” and really, there is no need to even think about CO2 moving forward. After all, if it is responsible for merely 0.01-0.1 degree of warming over 100 years which went from 300ppm to 400ppm CO2, but Co2 has an estimated lifespan of about 100 years in the Alarmists eyes, then we are hundreds of thousands of years (tens of thousands of ppm CO2 spilling) before we even see a single degree of temperature rise from CO2 – and even then, we have no idea what the world will naturally do to that CO2 level over that time; it naturally cycles it out of the air at different rates depending on how much is present (but that science is largely in its infancy as well; another case of jumping full force into “CO2 did it” theories without knowing almost any of the actual facts…)

        Which reminds me. Remember, “CO2 did it” (first causing “Global Cooling”, then “Global Warming”) theories started well before we even had any idea the Oceans had oscillations. Makes you wonder how much sooner we might have learned that pretty important fact had we not be laser-focused on that theory while blatantly trying to ignore all other possibilities and correlations that were present. I mean, the Ocean Oscillations probably should have been discovered in the 70s if we were interested in trying to figure out how Nature was causing the cooling after the extreme warming of the 20s-30s (but at that time they assumed the warming of the 20s-40s was the natural and the cooling in the 60s-70s must have been the part caused by Man – so again, completely backwards because they were more interested in a “man did it” theory then reality around them)

        And that is what it should be all about, after all – Science, and allowing the science to go where it wants instead of where we obsessively want it to go. That is the difference between a “Skeptic” and an alarmist insisting “the science is settled” in this argument. But sadly, those interested in the actual Science were the “nuts” while those blatantly (and illogically) forcing a very specific desired theory were the “real scientists”

  1. Pingback: The Great Global Warming Climate Shift | CACA

  2. Pingback: Global Warming Was Never About Science, It Was Always About Power And Money | CACA

  3. Pingback: US SENATE : 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims | CACA

  4. Pingback: UN Climate Chief Says Communism Is Best To Fight Global Warming | CACA

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: