NASA - Earth has been in COOLING TREND for last 6,000 years

You would be surprised what I know about the geological sciences. I just do not run my mouth about my experience and education.

We are tens of thousands of years from ever potentially seeing glacial sheets in Ohio. Civilization may not even be around then.

We should be cooler than we are because we overloaded the atmosphere with carbon and made it warmer than it should be.

The agency you are relying on - NASA - says we are not on the brink of an ice age



NASA agrees with me - we are currently in an inter-glacial cycle

Relying on? ... stop lying. :palm:

You freak out over a one degree warming in a century. What would you do if we were two degrees cooler as Nasa claims we should be? :palm:

Mini Ice Age? ... hell, Mann and the IPCC erased the 500 year long, Little Ice Age from history.

And supposedly, the LIA was caused by volcanoes. How does Nasa know we Won't have volcanoes erupting?
 
N.A.S.A

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
 
Relying on? ... stop lying. :palm:

You freak out over a one degree warming in a century. What would you do if we were two degrees cooler as Nasa claims we should be? :palm:

Mini Ice Age? ... hell, Mann and the IPCC erased the 500 year long, Little Ice Age from history.

And supposedly, the LIA was caused by volcanoes. How does Nasa know we Won't have volcanoes erupting?

You were the one that held out NASA as the authoritative source for this thread.

NASA agrees with me that we are not on the brink of a new ice age.

NASA agrees with me that we are currently in an inter-glacial cycle.

NASA agrees with me that the current rapid rate of global warming is largely because humans are overloading the atmosphere with carbon and GHGs.


Links at https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ND-for-last-6-000-years&p=4050139#post4050139
 
You were the one that held out NASA as the authoritative source for this thread.

NASA agrees with me that we are not on the brink of a new ice age.

NASA agrees with me that we are currently in an inter-glacial cycle.

NASA agrees with me that the current rapid rate of global warming is largely because humans are overloading the atmosphere with carbon and GHGs.


Links at https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ND-for-last-6-000-years&p=4050139#post4050139

No, I am discussing Nasa. Nasa claims M cycles are unreliable; contradicting their own authoritarian claims.

Nasa claims we are in a 6k year long cooling trend and at the end of the interglacial, and should already be 2 degrees colder and cooling more.

There is no such thing as "overloading" the atmosphere with carbon. That is an unscientifically supported leftist claim.

Do you believe the LIA was caused by volcanoes?
 
Last edited:
Y
NASA agrees with me that we are currently in an inter-glacial cycle.
[/I]

Oh No, looks like you are too late. 2016 was the point of no return. We are all dooooomed.



"Mr. Gore, a self-described “recovering politician” who has gone from Washington to fame and million-dollar fortune (and then some) as a super environmentalist, blustered in 2006 that unless radical reductions in greenhouse gases that cause global warming were enforced within 10 years the earth would pass the point of no return and be rendered inhospitable or even uninhabitable for children and other living things. "

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/7/editorial-an-inconvenient-stretcher/
 
Oh No, looks like you are too late. 2016 was the point of no return. We are all dooooomed.



"Mr. Gore, a self-described “recovering politician” who has gone from Washington to fame and million-dollar fortune (and then some) as a super environmentalist, blustered in 2006 that unless radical reductions in greenhouse gases that cause global warming were enforced within 10 years the earth would pass the point of no return and be rendered inhospitable or even uninhabitable for children and other living things. "

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/7/editorial-an-inconvenient-stretcher/

Al Gore was correct.

It depends what one means by "point of no return" . That is a poorly defined and nebulous term.

If Al Gore meant we would be smack dab in the middle of an environmental apocalypse in 2016, he was wrong.

He was correct that the effects of climate change are here as of 2016, and some of those effects are locked in and cannot be stopped now. Global sea rise and thermal expansion of the ocean is locked in at this point, and it cannot be stopped. All we can do is to prepare for the consequences and take action that will mitigate any drastic melting of the ice sheets.

We are not going to stop global warming at this point, and we have probably already blown the opportunity to keep temperature increases below the benchmark 2 degrees C by century end.

While some climate effects are now locked in, we still have opportunity to prepare and adapt for the worst consequences, and to slow, limit, or mitigate the worst case scenarios of global warming.
 
Al Gore was correct.

It depends what one means by "point of no return" . That is a poorly defined and nebulous term.

If Al Gore meant we would be smack dab in the middle of an environmental apocalypse in 2016, he was wrong.

He was correct that the effects of climate change are here as of 2016, and some of those effects are locked in and cannot be stopped now. Global sea rise and thermal expansion of the ocean is locked in at this point, and it cannot be stopped. All we can do is to prepare for the consequences and take action that will mitigate any drastic melting of the ice sheets.

We are not going to stop global warming at this point, and we have probably already blown the opportunity to keep temperature increases below the benchmark 2 degrees C by century end.

While some climate effects are now locked in, we still have opportunity to prepare and adapt for the worst consequences, and to slow, limit, or mitigate the worst case scenarios of global warming.

Like all Doomsday cults, when the predicted deadline comes and goes without incident, they simply move the date.

The Goracle was dead wrong about the Earth entering an unstoppable, runaway positive feedback loop.

Yeah, heat causes expansion and the removal of ice sheets causes land massed to rise. Who'd a thunk dat. :palm:

The Earth recently went thru a period where the sea level rose at an average rate of 4 ft. per century ... for 10 thousand years. And guess what, it's still livable. :palm:

300px-Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
 
Last edited:
We are not going to stop global warming at this point, and we have probably already blown the opportunity to keep temperature increases below the benchmark 2 degrees C by century end.

2C? ... a number pulled out of someone's ass. :palm:

It is estimated that the Little Ice Age cooled the Earth by 2C. :dunno:
 
Al Gore was correct.

It depends what one means by "point of no return" . That is a poorly defined and nebulous term.

If Al Gore meant we would be smack dab in the middle of an environmental apocalypse in 2016, he was wrong.

He was correct that the effects of climate change are here as of 2016, and some of those effects are locked in and cannot be stopped now. Global sea rise and thermal expansion of the ocean is locked in at this point, and it cannot be stopped. All we can do is to prepare for the consequences and take action that will mitigate any drastic melting of the ice sheets.

We are not going to stop global warming at this point, and we have probably already blown the opportunity to keep temperature increases below the benchmark 2 degrees C by century end.

While some climate effects are now locked in, we still have opportunity to prepare and adapt for the worst consequences, and to slow, limit, or mitigate the worst case scenarios of global warming.

2C? ... a number pulled out of someone's ass. :palm:
It is established with utmost scientific confidence global average temperatures have been relentlessly warming in the modern industrial era

You may be cheering :cheer: for global temperatures to continue to increase, but policy makers in consultation with the scientific community determined at Paris that limiting warming to less than 2C will allow us to avoid the most extreme adverse consequences.

It is estimated that the Little Ice Age cooled the Earth by 2C. :dunno:
The little ice age was not a global environmental phenomena, it was regional climatic effect, so comparing it to the current global warming is an apples to oranges analogy.

Even so, the little ice age caused substantial economic, agricultural, and social disruptions.

Is it the position of the Republican Party to stand on the sidelines and cheer :cheer: for economic and agricultural disruptions resulting from climate change?
 
It is established with utmost scientific confidence global average temperatures have been relentlessly warming in the modern industrial era

You may be cheering :cheer: for global temperatures to continue to increase, but policy makers in consultation with the scientific community determined at Paris that limiting warming to less than 2C will allow us to avoid the most extreme adverse consequences.


The little ice age was not a global environmental phenomena, it was regional climatic effect, so comparing it to the current global warming is an apples to oranges analogy.

Even so, the little ice age caused substantial economic, agricultural, and social disruptions.

Is it the position of the Republican Party to stand on the sidelines and cheer :cheer: for economic and agricultural disruptions resulting from climate change?

The Little Ice Age ended just 200 years ago, so obviously we are warming. That is what signifies end of an ice age. :dunno:

The LIA was supposedly caused by 500 years of volcanic eruptions. So naturally, there is evidence that it was global if you take the time to look for it. :dunno:

2C is a made up number. These climatologists have no track record of being able to predict the climate in 100 years. It is not science, it is speculation.

Warmer temps could save the planet from its current fatal, CO2 starved, IceHouse state.
 
Last edited:
Even so, the little ice age caused substantial economic, agricultural, and social disruptions.

While the Medieval Warming Period was extraordinarily beneficial. :dunno:

Are you also trying to claim that the LIA did not impact the average global temp?
 
Last edited:
Furthermore, "science" has no track record of ever being able to predict climate 100 or 300 years in the future. Zero, nada.
 
What the Leftists won't tell you is that ... most of the climate history of the Southern Hemisphere is "assumed", not scientifically measured.
 
Coral reefs dying, oceanic food supply dwindling, habitat disappearing, extended droughts, stronger storms, coastline disappearing, glaciers and ice caps melting.

My goodness. The earth is out there waving it's arms and saying "hey, dummies!" every single day....

All of that happened long before the industrial age. :palm:
 
For you anti science white libs ...

SEPTEMBER 24, 2009

"Peruvian glacial retreats linked to European events of Little Ice Age"

https://phys.org/news/2009-09-peruvian-glacial-retreats-linked-european.html

Originally Posted by Cypriss

The little ice age was not a global environmental phenomena, it was regional climatic effect, so comparing it to the current global warming is an apples to oranges analogy.
.

Crypiss is a sanctimonious, hectoring, smug, lying Californicator.


A team of UK researchers has shed new light on the climate of the Little Ice Age, and rekindled debate over the role of the sun in climate change. The new study, which involved detailed scientific examination of a peat bog in southern South America, indicates that the most extreme climate episodes of the Little Ice Age were felt not just in Europe and North America, which is well known, but apparently globally. The research has implications for current concerns over global warming.

Climate sceptics and believers of global warming have long argued about whether the Little Ice Age (from c. early 15th to 19th Centuries) was global, its causes, and how much influence the sun has had on global climate, both during the Little Ice Age and in recent decades. This new study helps clarify those debates.

The team of researchers, from the Universities of Gloucestershire, Aberdeen and Plymouth, conducted studies on past climate through detailed laboratory examination of peat from a bog near Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego. They used exactly the same laboratory methods as have been developed for peat bogs in Europe. Two principal techniques were used to reconstruct past climates over the past 3000 years: at close intervals throughout a vertical column of peat, the researchers investigated the degree of peat decomposition, which is directly related to climate, and also examined the peat matrix to reveal the changing amounts of different plants that previously grew on the bog.

The data show that the most extreme cold phases of the Little Ice Age -- in the mid-15th and then again in the early 18th centuries -- were synchronous in Europe and South America. There is one stark difference: while in continental north-west Europe, bogs became wetter, in Tierra del Fuego, the bog became drier -- in both cases probably a result of a dramatic equator-ward shift of moisture-bearing winds.

These extreme times coincide with periods when it is known that the sun was unusually quiet. In the late 17th to mid-18th centuries it had very few sunspots -- fewer even than during the run of recent cold winters in Europe, which other UK scientists have linked to a relatively quiet sun.

Professor Frank Chambers, Head of the University of Gloucestershire's Centre for Environmental Change and Quaternary Research, who led the writing of the Fast-Track Research Report, said: "Both sceptics and adherents of Global Warming might draw succour from this work. Our study is significant because, while there are various different estimates for the start and end of the Little Ice Age in different regions of the world, our data show that the most extreme phases occurred at the same time in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. These extreme episodes were abrupt global events. They were probably related to sudden, equator-ward shifts of the Westerlies in the Southern Hemisphere, and the Atlantic depression tracks in the Northern Hemisphere. The same shifts seem to have happened abruptly before, such as c. 2800 years ago, when the same synchronous but opposite response is shown in bogs in Northwest Europe compared with southern South America.

"It seems that the sun's quiescence was responsible for the most extreme phases of the Little Ice Age, implying that solar variability sometimes plays a significant role in climate change. A change in solar activity may also, for example, have contributed to the post Little Ice Age rise in global temperatures in the first half of the 20th Century. However, solar variability alone cannot explain the post-1970 global temperature trends, especially the global temperature rise in the last three decades of the 20th Century, which has been attributed by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

Professor Chambers concluded: "I must stress that our research findings are only interpretable for the period from 3000 years ago to the end of the Little Ice Age. That is the period upon which our research is focused. However, in light of our substantiation of the effects of 'grand solar minima' upon past global climates, it could be speculated that the current pausing of 'Global Warming', which is frequently referenced by those sceptical of climate projections by the IPCC, might relate at least in part to a countervailing effect of reduced solar activity, as shown in the recent sunspot cycle."


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141119204521.htm
 
Last edited:
Crypiss is a sanctimonious, hectoring, smug, lying Californicator.


Quit your simpering defeatism, maggot;

Originally Posted by Cypress

The little ice age was not a global environmental phenomena, it was regional climatic effect, so comparing it to the current global warming is an apples to oranges analogy.
 
Back
Top