The Ice Age Cometh! Forget Global Warming!

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Major climate change report looks set to alarm

Catherine Brahic
NewScientist.com news service
Tue, 30 Jan 2007
The most important report on the science of climate change for six years is set for release on Friday 2 February, and leaks suggest it will be an alarming read.

The minimum predicted temperature and sea level rises will jump, according to media reports, while the blame will be pinned firmly on greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Its leading line is expected to be "there is a 90% chance humans are responsible for climate change", mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels.

That contrasts with the last version of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report, issued in 2001, which concluded there was a 66% chance that humans were responsible for rising temperatures.

The new IPCC report is expected to predict that temperatures will rise by 2.0°C to 4.5°C by 2100. The 2001 report gave a range of 1.4°C and 5.8°C - a wider range and a lower minimum rise.

Similarly, the new report is believed to predict that sea-levels will rise by between 28 centimetres and 43 cm by 2100, compared with the 2001 prediction of between 9 cm and 88 cm (2.54 cm = 1 inch).

But even these changes are regarded by some as a conservative estimates arrived at by consensus. "If the IPCC comes out with significantly less than 100 cm of sea level rise, there will be people in the science community saying we don't think that's a fair reflection of what we know," said Bob Corell, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, speaking to Associated Press.
Gold standard

The IPCC draws together hundreds of the world's leading experts on climate science, under the auspices of the World Meteorology Organization and the UN Environment Programme, to review and assess all available research.

The result of their assessment, which is done every five to six years, establishes what is considered the gold standard of consensus on climate change science.

The new IPCC report was written by 1250 experts and reviewed by a further 2500. It is being released in stages during 2007. The first chapter, due on 2 February, deals with the scientific basis for climate change. This includes, for example, how the atmosphere responds to increasing levels of greenhouse gases, how the gases cycle through the environment, and changes in water temperature and sea-levels.

The final amendments to the drafts will be made at a meeting in Paris, France, starting on Monday. For four days, government officials will work line by line through a summary aimed at policymakers before they release it to the public on the morning of 2 February.
Melting fast

"I hope this report will shock people and governments into taking more serious action as you really can't get a more authentic and a more credible piece of scientific work. So I hope this will be taken for what it's worth," said the IPCC chairman, R K Pachauri.

Pachauri told Reuters that the report's findings will be "far more serious and much more a matter of concern" than in previous reports.

For instance, it was previously thought that it would take hundreds of years for the Greenland ice sheet to melt right the way through. But research published in 2002 showed that how the Greenland ice sheet was melting had been poorly understood. In 2006, satellite data suggested the ice sheet was disappearing three times faster than previously thought.

It is not yet known how much weight results like this will be given in new IPCC report. However, it is certain that a great number of high-profile scientific studies have painted a bleaker picture of human-induced climate change in the past six years.
Mitigating impact

One notable study came in December 2004. It looked at how human greenhouse gas emissions had affected the probability of a devastating heat wave in Europe in the summer of 2003 (estimated to have killed at least 35,000 people.) The study found that emissions from human activities at least doubled the risk of such an event.

The next two parts of the IPCC's 2007 assessment, plus a synthesis, will be released throughout the year. Part 2, dealing with the impacts of climate change and our vulnerability to those impacts, will be released in April. Part 3, to be released in May, deals with how we can mitigate these impacts.
_http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11049-major-climate-change-report-looks-set-to-alarm.html
 

Ruth

The Living Force
I saw an advertisement recently on how best to 'help' stop climate change.... become vegetarian.... Yes, they were serious.

Apparently, our 'cloven hooved comrades' produce far too much methane gas and are a serious 'threat' to the world because of it, so in order to reduce their number, we are supposed to stop eating them. Supply and demand in action, I guess.

Seeing as the majority of people belong to the O positive blood group and would not thrive on a vegetarian diet if they had to eat one, that seems like an invitation to go and weaken a whole bunch of people, just for the hell of it. Or perhaps its a 'plan'. The PTB have become awfully fond of lying since 9/11. Nothing really surprises me.
 

Bobo08

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
There is an interesting article on the SOTT page today:

Something Strange is Happening at the Coldest, Driest Place on Earth
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/164051

[...]
For someone who has experienced "freaky weather" in the Antarctic up close and personal, reports this week that baby Antarctic penguins are freezing to death due to "freak rain storms," came as no surprise.

Fellow explorer Jon Bowermaster had this to say:

"Everyone talks about the melting of the glaciers but having day after day of rain in Antarctica is a totally new phenomenon. As a result, penguins are literally freezing to death."

The sad truth is there's been a lot of freaky things happening in the Antarctic lately.

[...]

With all that ice, it might seem kind of backwards to call snow at the South Pole "freaky," but it is. The Antarctic is literally a desert of ice with an average of 1-inch of precipitation each year.

Antarctica is in fact the the coldest, highest, windiest and driest continent on earth.

[...]

Within hours the crystals thickened and turned heavy - and soon visibility would be completely chocked off. By midnight a rare easterly rose, climaxing at to 40 knots. What began as a crystal dance now turned to a full-blown blizzard - the equivalent of torrential rain in the middle of the Sahara. What I was seeing was real, the world had indeed turned upside-down, and it would be more than a week before it could right itself.

I was trapped, wrapped in a blizzard somewhere around the 83rd parallel. A few hundred miles away at Base camp - things were no better. I spoke by satellite phone from my buried tent to Mike Sharp, the Logistics Veteran who had not missed an Antarctic season since 1977.

He could offer little comfort:

"I've never seen anything like this mate. I don't know what to make of it, but whatever you do, don't move"

Of course I moved, I needed to move, I was running short of food... Struggling over the ice, blinded by fierce white, I began to wonder what had caused this. Could this be an isolated event, or was it part of a bigger system? Could this be part of larger phenomena - like Global Warming?

Last year I was wondering, but now I know for certain that even in the coldest, driest place on earth something just isn't right.

And the C's had this to say:

May 9, 1998

[...]
Q: How does global warming cause glaciers?
A: Increases precipitation dramatically. Then moves the belt of great precipitation much farther north. This causes rapid buildup of ice sheets, followed by increasingly rapid and intense glacial rebound.
[...]
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Looks like Alex Jones has gotten on the "Ice Age is Coming" bandwagon. Well, heck, we've been saying it for years. But, of course, when we say it, because it is "inspired" by the Cs, it can't be real, right? Never mind that the Cs have an amazing "hit record" without descending to "date predictions."

_http://www.prisonplanet.com/scientist-predicts-ice-age-within-10-years.html

University of Mexico expert says lack of solar activity to cause significant cooling that will last over half a century

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, August 19, 2008

As evidence builds of the earth entering a dramatic cooling trend, another scientist has gone public with his conviction that we are about to enter a new ice age, rendering warnings about global warming fraudulent and irrelevant.

Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera of the Institute of Geophysics at the University of Mexico states that “In about ten years the Earth will enter a “little ice age” which will last from 60 to 80 years and may be caused by the decrease in solar activity,” according to a report in the major Mexican newspaper Milenio Diario.

Herrera slammed the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) stance on global warming as “erroneous” because of their failure to factor in the impact of solar activity.

The models and forecasts of the IPCC “is incorrect because only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity,” said Herrera.

Herrera states that the earth is entering a natural phase of climate transition during which solar activity will diminish considerably, “so that in two years or so, there will be a small ice age that lasts from 60 to 80 years.”

Herrera cited the growth in glaciers observed at the Andes, Perito Moreno, Logan, the highest mountain in Canada, and Franz-Josef Glacier, New Zealand.

A dramatic cooling trend is being observed across the planet even as people like Al Gore continue to claim that the threat of global warming mandates the poor and middle class be hit with CO2 taxes in order to prevent climate change.

Both anecdotal evidence and hard data indicates that the planet is in the beginning stages of a significant downturn in global temperatures.

Following the end of the Sun’s most active period in over 11,000 years, the last 10 years have displayed a clear cooling trend as temperatures post-1998 leveled out and are now plummeting.

China recently experienced its coldest winter in 100 years while northeast America was hit by record snow levels and Britain suffered its coldest April in decades as late-blooming daffodils were pounded with hail and snow on an almost daily basis. The British summer has also left many yearning for global warming, with temperatures in June and July rarely struggling to get over 16 degrees and on one occasion even dropping as low as 9 degrees in the middle of the afternoon.

“Summer heat continues in short supply, continuing a trend that has dominated much of the 21st Century’s opening decade,” reports the Chicago Tribune. “There have been only 162 days 90 degrees or warmer at Midway Airport over the period from 2000 to 2008. That’s by far the fewest 90-degree temperatures in the opening nine years of any decade on record here since 1930.”

The reason? Sunspot activity has dwindled. There have only been a handful of days in the past two months where any sunspot activity has been observed and over 400 spotless days have been recorded in the current solar cycle.

“The sun’s surface has been fairly blank for the last couple of years, and that has some worried that it may be entering another Maunder minimum, the sun’s 50-year abstinence from sunspots, which some scientists have linked to the Little Ice Age of the 17th century,” reports one science blog.

Since the sun, and not carbon dioxide, is the principle driver of climate change, a dearth of sunspot activity would herald a repeat of the Maunder Minimum, the name given to the period roughly from 1645 to 1715, when sunspots became exceedingly rare and contributed to the onset of the Little Ice Age during which Europe and North America were hit by bitterly cold winters and the Thames river in London completely froze.

Long-time man-made global warming advocates NASA assure us that significant sunspot activity will return in 2012, but a recent a paper on recent solar trends by William Livingston and Matthew Penn of the National Solar Observatory in Tucson, predicts that sunspots will all but vanish after 2015.

As we reported last week, the Armagh observatory, which has been measuring sun cycles for over 200 years. predicts that global temperatures will drop by two degrees over the next 20 years as solar activity grinds to a halt and the planet drastically cools down, potentially heralding the onset of a new ice age.

“Based on the past Armagh measurements, this suggests that over the next two decades, global temperatures may fall by about 2 degrees C — that is, to a level lower than any we have seen in the last 100 years….”Temperatures have already fallen by about 0.5 degrees C over the past 12 months and, if this is only the start of it, it would be a serious concern,” concludes David Watt.

Of course, the REASON that the Cs give for the Maunder Minimum and lack of sunspots is something else....

22 Feb 97

A: Climate is being influenced by three factors, and soon a fourth.
Q: (Laura) All right, I'll take the bait; give me the three factors, and
also the fourth!.
A: 1) Wave approach. 2) Chloroflorocarbon increase in atmosphere, thus
affecting ozone layer. 3) Change in the planet's axis rotation
orientation. 4) Artificial tampering by 3rd and 4th density
STS forces in a number of different ways. Be vigilant. Be observant. Be
cautious in your planning and be aware. Do not let emotional anomalies
cloud your knowledge base. This is not a "time" to let one's guard down.
Be especially careful of travel to unfamiliar locators, as well as
sleeping in unfamiliar surroundings!!! You are being watched. Or, at
least, it is best to assume you are, and act, think, and prepare
accordingly. Remember what you have been warned about concerning attack.
As you learn more and know more, you become more interesting... and,
when your ranks swell, you are more vulnerable unless you are more
aware!!
Q: (Laura) All right, were those given in the order in which they are
occurring? The fourth being the one that's coming later?
A: Maybe, but remember this: a change in the speed of the rotation may
not be reported while it is imperceptible except by instrumentation.
Equator is slightly "wider" than the polar zones. But, this discrepancy
is decreasing slowly currently. One change to occur in 21st Century is
sudden glacial rebound, over Eurasia first, then North America. Ice ages
develop much, much, much faster than thought.


9 May 98

Q: Yes. That we will be provided for. Yes, but it is hard
because we have to be apart... Okay. I would like to know
what the geographic coordinates, according to our current
grid system, that would frame Atlantis. I don't need the
exact shape, just a general box shape... the perimeter...
A: Like asking: "What are the geographic coordinates of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization?"
Q: Okay, let me get more specific: the Atlantean land that
was supposed to have existed in the Atlantic Ocean... what
was the farthest north of any any part of Atlantis that
was in the ocean, that no longer exists?
A: It is "time for you" to know that Atlantis was not a
nation, land, Island, or continent, but rather, a
civilization!
Q: All I wanted was to have an idea of a land mass in the
Atlantic ocean that people talk about - where did it sit?
A: Where do you think?
Q: Well, I sort of think that the Azores and the Canary
Islands are sort of...
A: Yes, but many other places too. Remember, the sea level
was several hundred feet lower then...
Q: Why was the sea level several hundred feet lower? Because
there was ice somewhere or because there was not as much
water on the earth at that time?
A: Ice.
Q: Was the ice piled up at the poles? The ice sheet of the
ice age?
A: Yes.
Q: So, Atlantis existed during the ice age?
A: Largely, yes. And the world's climate was scarcely any
colder away from the ice sheets than it is today.
Q: Well, how could that be? What caused these glaciers?
A: Global warming.
Q: How does global warming cause glaciers?
A: Increases precipitation dramatically. Then moves the belt
of great precipitation much farther north. This causes
rapid buildup of ice sheets, followed by increasingly
rapid and intense glacial rebound.


11 July 98

Q: (A) I want to continue questions from the previous
session. First, about this companion star: where is it
now; which part of the zodiac?
A: Libra Constellation.
Q: (A) Where is the periodic comet cluster?
A: Not visible. It approaches in "scatter pattern,"
indicating that one or two of the members may have already
made the circuit.
Q: (A) We have been told that it will look like one solid
object at first.
A: Yes, but not necessarily only one grouping. Will show up
first in the region of the Magellanic Clouds.
Q: (A) So, we have the idea. Next question concerning this
companion star; we were told that its mass is less than
the sun, can we have a figure on how much less?
A: 56 percent of the mass of the sun.
Q: (A) Okay, if this is really so, then when it really starts
to approach the solar system, and they rotate in tandem,
it means that the sun will really start to feel its
gravity, and because of this, the solar system will start
to move with respect to other stars, so all the
constellations will shift, is this correct?
A: More like a slight "wobble" effect.
Q: (L) Will that be perceptible to us here on the Earth?
A: Only through measurements.
Q: (T) There have been a lot of reports of late regarding
major solar activity, solar flares, solar winds, etc. The
surface of the sun has a whole lot going on. The last I
heard, one of the two satellites observing the sun, one of
them is gone. Is this an effect from the sun itself, or
is this an effect of the approaching brown dwarf?
A: The sun.
Q: (T) As the brown dwarf approaches, will it intensify the
solar flare activity?
A: The effect on the physical orientation of the sun from the
periodic passage of its companion is to flatten the sphere
slightly. This returns to its original spherical shape
with the retreat.
Q: (L) Is this flattening of the sphere of the sun going to
have any noticeable effects in terms of enhanced,
accelerated, or magnified radiation from the sun?
A: No.
Q: (T) Solar flares or anything like that?
A: No.
Q: (T) So there is not going to be any appreciable effect on
the planet from this as far as the sun goes?
A: The sun's gravity increases, thus inhibiting flares.
Q: (T) Inhibiting flares is good. (L) Not necessarily.
Solar minimums have been periods of ice ages. (T) One of
the recent crop circles this year shows what the crop
circle interpreters say is an image of the sun with a
large solar flare coming off of it. It is supposed to be
a warning to us that the surface of the sun has become
unstable...
A: All events intersect.
Q: (A) Okay, I would like to ask what kind of effects other
than just gravity we should expect from the close passage
of this star? Any particular electro-magnetic, gamma
radiation, or what to look for? In which part of the
spectrum?
A: Radiation emits from those cosmic bodies which radiate.
Q: (L) Are you saying that the brown star does not radiate?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) If it doesn't radiate, what does it do?
A: Its radioactive field is severely limited as the "fire"
went out long ago. It does not give off light.

18 March 2000

Q: Now, a couple of world events have recently occurred which were in an earlier list of predictions. One of these was the Ukraine explosion and the other was the flood in Africa. In fact, the flood headlines were almost in the same words you gave it. What this made me think was that, since these things are beginning to happen, since they were given as a group prediction, does this mean that the other things in that particular segment may be just around the corner in time, so to speak?
A: Could be.
Q: You also made a remark once that ice ages occur much, much faster than people ever thought...
A: Yes.
Q: Do we need to invest in some mukluks and snowshoes?
A: ??
Q: Well, what I am trying to get at is: should we start stockpiling firewood?
A: Maybe.
Q: So, it could be that fast?
A: Oh yes, and faster when in response to global"warming."
Q: When you put "warming" in quotes, you obviously mean warming in more than just an ordinary sense? Is that correct?
A: And/or not really "warm."
Q: Whitley Strieber and Art Bell have published a book about a "global superstorm." Is any of the information they have given in this book fairly accurate?
A: Derived from non-human sources known for stark accuracy, when convenient.
Q: What makes it convenient at the present time for them to be "starkly accurate?"
A: Fits into plans.
Q: Plans for what?
A: Do we not know already?
Q: In other words: world conquest and the takeover of humanity?
A: Not as simple.
Q: What would make my statement more accurate?
A: Call it amalgamation.


18 Jan 03

Q: (L) We are a little bit curious about the strange weather. Is this the beginning of the ice age?
A: It is a precursor.


17 August 03

Q: (J) Can we expect an ice age any time soon?

A: wait a couple of years and check the thermometer!!!

[group laughter]

Q: (L) Is a couple of years a clue here?

A: Is it? Hmm...

[more laughter]

Q: (L) I suppose we can take that as a yes. (H) We recently pulled together some info on the Maunder Minimum. Are we correct in the direction we are taking on that?

A: We wondered how long it would take you to figure that one out.
 
R

Rick

Guest
Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate

link

Rhodes Fairbridge died on 8th November, 2006. He was one of Australia’s most accomplished scientists and has
a special connection with Australia. In July, 1912 his father Kingsley established Fairbridge Village near Perth.
It contains a chapel of elegant simplicity designed by one of the world’s most famous architects of the time, Sir
Herbert Baker, as a labour of love to commemorate Kingsley. Rhodes is one of the few scientists to research the
sun/climate relationship in terms of the totality of the sun’s impact on the earth (i.e. gravity, the electromagnetic
force and output and their interaction). When the totality of the sun’s impact is considered, having regard to the
relevant research published over the last two decades, the influence of solar variability on the earth’s climate is
very strongly non-linear and stochastic. Rhodes also researched the idea that the planets might have a role in
producing the sun’s variable activity. If they do and if the sun’s variable activity regulates climate, then
ultimately the planets may regulate it. Recent research about the sun/climate relationship and the solar inertial
motion (sim) hypothesis shows a large body of circumstantial evidence and several working hypotheses but no
satisfactory account of a physical sim process. In 2007 Ulysses will send information about the solar poles. This
could be decisive regarding the predictions about emergent Sunspot Cycle No 24, including the sim hypothesis.
According to the sim hypothesis, this cycle should be like Sunspot Cycle No 14, and be followed by two that will
create a brief ice age. During the 1920s and ‘30s Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology published research about
the sun/climate relationship, especially Sunspot Cycle No 14, showing that it probably caused the worst drought
then on record.

...

from about 2010 to 2040 will be one of relatively severe cold
throughout the world. The hypothesis predicts that the emergent
Sunspot Cycle No 24 will be quieter than Sunspot Cycle No 23
and just like Sunspot Cycle No 14, the weakest cycle in the last
100 years, which began in February, 1902 and ended in August,
1913. More than a dozen predictions of Sunspot Cycle 24 have
been published in scientific literature since 1999;xxii some based
only on statistical features of solar, including sunspot, activity.
These tend to predict that Sunspot Cycle 24 will be larger and
stronger than its predecessor. Some are based on an
understanding of solar physics. DIKPATI, DE TOMA and GILMAN
(2006) predict that Sunspot Cycle 24 will be 30 to 50 per cent
higher than Sunspot Cycle 23. DIKPATI, DE TOMA and GILMAN
(2006) also predict that the cycle will start a year late, some time
in late 2007 or early 2008. Their prediction is based on computer
simulation of the solar dynamo; however, TOBIAS et al. (2006)
have drawn attention to the highly speculative nature of this
prediction. Amongst other things, they note that the solar dynamo
model used by DIKPATI, DE TOMA and GILMAN (2006) ‘relies on
parametrisation of many poorly understood effects’, and the model
has no known predictive power. SVALGAARD, CLIVER, and
KAMIDE (2005) predict that Sunspot Cycle No. 24 will be
significantly smaller and weaker than its predecessor and will be
just like Sunspot Cycle No. 14. Their prediction is based on an
examination of the strength of the magnetic fields that congregate
in the polar regions of the sun a few years before the solar
minimum of each solar cycle and relating the strength of those
fields to the observed sunspot numbers during the next solar
maximum. The polar magnetic fields provide the ‘seed’ magnetic
flux necessary to drive the sunspot activity during the next solar
cycle. SVALGAARD, CLIVER, and KAMIDE (2005) theorise that the
solar polar fields will be weak during 2007-2008 and will remain
weak. They have recently reported that the polar fields are the
weakest ever observed.xxiii
LIVINGSTON (2004) found that the maximum of Sunspot Cycle
No 22 was statistically significantly stronger than the same phase
of Sunspot Cycle No 23. PENN and LIVINGSTON (2006) report that
over the past eight years, throughout the life of Sunspot Cycle No
23, the maximum sunspot magnetic fields have been decreasing by
about 52 G yr-1. They note that a continuation of the documented
trends would mean that the number of sunspots in Sunspot Cycle
No 24 would be reduced roughly by half and that very few
sunspots would be visible on the solar disk during Sunspot Cycle
No 25. CLIVERD et al (2006) used a previously-validated model of
solar variability that includes all known periodicities of solar
activity. These include periods of 22, 53, 88, 106, 213 and 420
years that modulate the better known 11-year sunspot cycle. This
is the only published model to include all solar periodicities. This
model, which generally reproduces the periodicities in the sunspot
data recorded since 1750, predicts that Sunspot Cycle No 24 will
be quieter than Sunspot Cycle No 14. It also predicts that Sunspot
Cycle Nos 25 and 26 will be even more subdued. Furthermore,
the model predicts that solar activity will return to more normal
levels from Sunspot Cycle No 27 onwards; that is, by around the
middle of the century.

And according to NASA, the Ulysses mission made some startling discoveries:

PASADENA, Calif. - After more than 17 years of pioneering solar science, a joint NASA and European Space Agency mission to study the sun will end on or about July 1.

The Ulysses spacecraft has endured for almost four times its expected lifespan. However, the spacecraft will cease operations because of a decline in power produced by its onboard generators. Ulysses has forever changed the way scientists view the sun and its effect on the surrounding space. Mission results and the science legacy it leaves behind were reviewed today at a media briefing at European Space Agency Headquarters in Paris.

"The main objective of Ulysses was to study, from every angle, the heliosphere, which is the vast bubble in space carved out by the solar wind," said Ed Smith, Ulysses project scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. "Over its long life, Ulysses redefined our knowledge of the heliosphere and went on to answer questions about our solar neighborhood we did not know to ask."

Ulysses ends its career after revealing that the magnetic field emanating from the sun's poles is much weaker than previously observed. This could mean the upcoming solar maximum period will be less intense than in recent history.

"Over almost two decades of science observations by Ulysses, we have learned a lot more than we expected about our star and the way it interacts with the space surrounding it," said Richard Marsden, Ulysses project scientist and mission manager for the European Space Agency (ESA). "Solar missions have appeared in recent years, but Ulysses is still unique today. Its special point of view over the sun's poles never has been covered by any other mission."

The spacecraft and its suite of 10 instruments had to be highly sensitive, yet robust enough to withstand some of the most extreme conditions in the solar system, including intense radiation while passing by the giant planet Jupiter's north pole. The encounter occurred while injecting the mission into its orbit over the sun's poles.

"Ulysses has been a challenging mission since launch," said Ed Massey, Ulysses project manager at JPL. "Its success required the cooperation and intellect of engineers and scientists from around the world."

Ulysses was the first mission to survey the environment in space above and below the poles of the sun in the four dimensions of space and time. It showed the sun's magnetic field is carried into the solar system in a more complicated manner than previously believed. Particles expelled by the sun from low latitudes can climb to high latitudes and vice versa, sometimes unexpectedly finding their way out to the planets. Ulysses also studied dust flowing into our solar system from deep space, and showed it was 30 times more abundant than astronomers suspected. In addition, the spacecraft detected helium atoms from deep space and confirmed the universe does not contain enough matter to eventually halt its expansion.

More dust, reduced solar irradiance. Sounds like a prescription for something cold on the way.
 

ScioAgapeOmnis

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Here are some signs to watch for just from the above sessions (I listed them as I was reading so it's in the order they were mentioned):

- Rotation speed of earth (Is there any place where this is measured and results constantly published?)
- Increased precipitation and strange weather - see http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=9374
- Build up of ice-sheets in the north
- Glacial Rebound (What is that? Is that the same as post-glacial rebound?)
- Brown Dwarf in Libra in 1998 (That's one clue, combined with others they gave elsewhere maybe orbit can be determined)
- Comet Cluster showing up in Magellanic Clouds (is there a site with updated pics of magellanic clouds that can be monitored and compared to previous pics on a constant basis?)
- Wobbling of the sun
- Flattening of sun (Is there any place this is measured or how could somebody go about measuring that?)
- Fewer or smaller (or both) solar flares (There's gotta be a site tracking numbers and sizes of solar flares yearly)
- Fewer Sunspots (There's gotta be a website tracking those too)
 

ianvr

Jedi
Sun Makes History: First Spotless Month in a Century

Drop in solar activity has potential effect for climate on earth.

The sun has reached a milestone not seen for nearly 100 years: an entire month has passed without a single visible sunspot being noted.

The event is significant as many climatologists now believe solar magnetic activity – which determines the number of sunspots -- is an influencing factor for climate on earth.

According to data from Mount Wilson Observatory, UCLA, more than an entire month has passed without a spot. The last time such an event occurred was June of 1913. Sunspot data has been collected since 1749.

When the sun is active, it's not uncommon to see sunspot numbers of 100 or more in a single month. Every 11 years, activity slows, and numbers briefly drop to near-zero. Normally sunspots return very quickly, as a new cycle begins.

But this year -- which corresponds to the start of Solar Cycle 24 -- has been extraordinarily long and quiet, with the first seven months averaging a sunspot number of only 3. August followed with none at all. The astonishing rapid drop of the past year has defied predictions, and caught nearly all astronomers by surprise.

In 2005, a pair of astronomers from the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson attempted to publish a paper in the journal Science. The pair looked at minute spectroscopic and magnetic changes in the sun. By extrapolating forward, they reached the startling result that, within 10 years, sunspots would vanish entirely. At the time, the sun was very active. Most of their peers laughed at what they considered an unsubstantiated conclusion.

The journal ultimately rejected the paper as being too controversial.

The paper's lead author, William Livingston, tells DailyTech that, while the refusal may have been justified at the time, recent data fits his theory well. He says he will be "secretly pleased" if his predictions come to pass.

But will the rest of us? In the past 1000 years, three previous such events -- the Dalton, Maunder, and Spörer Minimums, have all led to rapid cooling. One was large enough to be called a "mini ice age". For a society dependent on agriculture, cold is more damaging than heat. The growing season shortens, yields drop, and the occurrence of crop-destroying frosts increases.

Meteorologist Anthony Watts, who runs a climate data auditing site, tells DailyTech the sunspot numbers are another indication the "sun's dynamo" is idling. According to Watts, the effect of sunspots on TSI (total solar irradiance) is negligible, but the reduction in the solar magnetosphere affects cloud formation here on Earth, which in turn modulates climate.

This theory was originally proposed by physicist Henrik Svensmark, who has published a number of scientific papers on the subject. Last year Svensmark's "SKY" experiment claimed to have proven that galactic cosmic rays -- which the sun's magnetic field partially shields the Earth from -- increase the formation of molecular clusters that promote cloud growth. Svensmark, who recently published a book on the theory, says the relationship is a larger factor in climate change than greenhouse gases.

Solar physicist Ilya Usoskin of the University of Oulu, Finland, tells DailyTech the correlation between cosmic rays and terrestrial cloud cover is more complex than "more rays equals more clouds". Usoskin, who notes the sun has been more active since 1940 than at any point in the past 11 centuries, says the effects are most important at certain latitudes and altitudes which control climate. He says the relationship needs more study before we can understand it fully.

Other researchers have proposed solar effects on other terrestrial processes besides cloud formation. The sunspot cycle has strong effects on irradiance in certain wavelengths such as the far ultraviolet, which affects ozone production. Natural production of isotopes such as C-14 is also tied to solar activity. The overall effects on climate are still poorly understood.

What is incontrovertible, though, is that ice ages have occurred before. And no scientist, even the most skeptical, is prepared to say it won't happen again.

Article Update, Sep 1 2008. After this story was published, the NOAA reversed their previous decision on a tiny speck seen Aug 21, which gives their version of the August data a half-point. Other observation centers such as Mount Wilson Observatory are still reporting a spotless month. So depending on which center you believe, August was a record for either a full century, or only 50 years.

http://www.dailytech.com/Sun+Makes+History+First+Spotless+Month+in+a+Century/article12823.htm
 

axj

The Living Force
_http://www.dailytech.com/Sun+Makes+History+First+Spotless+Month+in+a+Century/article12823.htm

Sun Makes History: First Spotless Month in a Century
Michael Asher - September 1, 2008 8:11 AM

Drop in solar activity has potential effect for climate on earth.

The sun has reached a milestone not seen for nearly 100 years: an entire month has passed without a single visible sunspot being noted.

The event is significant as many climatologists now believe solar magnetic activity – which determines the number of sunspots -- is an influencing factor for climate on earth.

According to data from Mount Wilson Observatory, UCLA, more than an entire month has passed without a spot. The last time such an event occurred was June of 1913. Sunspot data has been collected since 1749.

When the sun is active, it's not uncommon to see sunspot numbers of 100 or more in a single month. Every 11 years, activity slows, and numbers briefly drop to near-zero. Normally sunspots return very quickly, as a new cycle begins.

But this year -- which corresponds to the start of Solar Cycle 24 -- has been extraordinarily long and quiet, with the first seven months averaging a sunspot number of only 3. August followed with none at all. The astonishing rapid drop of the past year has defied predictions, and caught nearly all astronomers by surprise.

In 2005, a pair of astronomers from the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson attempted to publish a paper in the journal Science. The pair looked at minute spectroscopic and magnetic changes in the sun. By extrapolating forward, they reached the startling result that, within 10 years, sunspots would vanish entirely. At the time, the sun was very active. Most of their peers laughed at what they considered an unsubstantiated conclusion.

The journal ultimately rejected the paper as being too controversial.

The paper's lead author, William Livingston, tells DailyTech that, while the refusal may have been justified at the time, recent data fits his theory well. He says he will be "secretly pleased" if his predictions come to pass.

But will the rest of us? In the past 1000 years, three previous such events -- the Dalton, Maunder, and Spörer Minimums, have all led to rapid cooling. One was large enough to be called a "mini ice age". For a society dependent on agriculture, cold is more damaging than heat. The growing season shortens, yields drop, and the occurrence of crop-destroying frosts increases.

Meteorologist Anthony Watts, who runs a climate data auditing site, tells DailyTech the sunspot numbers are another indication the "sun's dynamo" is idling. According to Watts, the effect of sunspots on TSI (total solar irradiance) is negligible, but the reduction in the solar magnetosphere affects cloud formation here on Earth, which in turn modulates climate.

This theory was originally proposed by physicist Henrik Svensmark, who has published a number of scientific papers on the subject. Last year Svensmark's "SKY" experiment claimed to have proven that galactic cosmic rays -- which the sun's magnetic field partially shields the Earth from -- increase the formation of molecular clusters that promote cloud growth. Svensmark, who recently published a book on the theory, says the relationship is a larger factor in climate change than greenhouse gases.

Solar physicist Ilya Usoskin of the University of Oulu, Finland, tells DailyTech the correlation between cosmic rays and terrestrial cloud cover is more complex than "more rays equals more clouds". Usoskin, who notes the sun has been more active since 1940 than at any point in the past 11 centuries, says the effects are most important at certain latitudes and altitudes which control climate. He says the relationship needs more study before we can understand it fully.

Other researchers have proposed solar effects on other terrestrial processes besides cloud formation. The sunspot cycle has strong effects on irradiance in certain wavelengths such as the far ultraviolet, which affects ozone production. Natural production of isotopes such as C-14 is also tied to solar activity. The overall effects on climate are still poorly understood.

What is incontrovertible, though, is that ice ages have occurred before. And no scientist, even the most skeptical, is prepared to say it won't happen again.

Article Update, Sep 1 2008. After this story was published, the NOAA reversed their previous decision on a tiny speck seen Aug 21, which gives their version of the August data a half-point. Other observation centers such as Mount Wilson Observatory are still reporting a spotless month. So depending on which center you believe, August was a record for either a full century, or only 50 years.
 

Erna

The Living Force
Here is a proposed view of what the previous ice age would have looked like:

ice-age-cover.jpg


Taken from http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/ice-age1.htm

Looks just like the Cs desciption of the next glacial rebound.
 

ianvr

Jedi
I would have included substantial ice cover also over the Eastern part of Africa; Mount Kilimanjaro region in that map, but I suppose its only a suggested ice map during those years.
 

uhura

The Force is Strong With This One
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7596134.stm could be related.....
 

Pierre

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Apparently Antartica was forgotten in the map. However in the attached article we learn than Antartica was indeed covered with ice at this time :

his evidence of glacial activity showed just how much ice there was -- about one-third of the world was under thick ice, for a grand total of 17 million cubic miles (71 million cubic km) of glacial ice [source: Gosnell]. Antarctica, which already had an ice sheet, had 10 percent more ice than it does now [Gosnell].
 
The world has never seen such freezing heat

By Christopher Booker
The Daily Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 16/11/2008

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

# EU facing revolt over climate change target enforcement
# EU plans new energy deals
# Himalayan glaciers 'could disappear completely by 2035'

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.

Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.

source: The Daily Telegraph
 

Rich

The Living Force
It's a goodie, we have it : http://www.sott.net/articles/show/169129-The-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat
 

PopHistorian

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
_http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Chock full of killer quotes by scientists. Yeah, you go, guys. Hopefully, this story won't remain buried on a snoozy government web site.

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History'
POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]

Full Senate Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned…

A hint of what the upcoming report contains:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

[... much more ...]
 
Top Bottom