Coldest temp anomaly in the WORLD...here

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Liberal logic:


1. The world might go back into an ice age if we didn't have human interference.

2. Human interference counter acts global cooling.

3. Let's stop this right now and plunge the planet into an ice age...

4. Let's start crying about all the people dying because a cold planet can't grow food or have enough energy to support 10 billion humans and all the Flora and fauna we have.

And the really unsurprising thing is that Chuck can't find a cut and paste that contradicts the contradiction he posted early and we both pointed out. Oh the webs we weave when at first we practice to deceive.

[grassfarmer]

Indian measurements.

Scotsman David Douglas came across it in 1827 so not unknown in 1843.

[Sheepwheat]

Scotsman David Douglas came across it in 1827 so not unknown in 1843.

My point is, who was tracking it? What was the extent in 1680?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Scotsman David Douglas came across it in 1827 so not unknown in 1843.

No doubt we have recorded history that far back, and geological history almost as far back as we want to go. Not sure why anyone would dispute that. I am reassured everytime we go to the icefields and see the signs indicating that they are still retreating at the same pace.

Please ignore the site this came from, as I know you would dismiss it, but if you follow the links and sources within, there is lots of information about Glacier advance and retreat during and since the little ice age. Brian Fagan is very much in the AGW camp, and he is referenced several times in this blog.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/glacial-advance-during-the-little-ice-age/

From the end of the blog post:

But even if they were not, it is clear that much of the 20thC rise in sea levels that we have seen is no more than a return to the conditions that existed 1000 years ago, before glaciers worldwide began to expand.

We do know that much of the glacial retreat since the 19thC actually took place before the middle of the 20thC, as the photo at the top illustrates.



There is no written law of nature that says glaciers should be the size they were in Victorian times. Indeed, there is no reason why they should not return to their state 4000 years ago.

As HH Lamb writes in “Climate, History and The Modern World” (pp 146).

“Most – and perhaps all – of the glaciers present today in the United States Rockies south of the Canadian border are believed to have formed since 1500 BC.”

[Sheepwheat]

A simple google search of growing glaciers, is interesting.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

My point is, who was tracking it? What was the extent in 1680?

In 1680, they would have been still expanding due to the little ice age, probably reached their maximum at around 1843 as the little ice age ended, so that is a convenient benchmark if you have an agenda. We can learn so much from history if we choose to. Of course it is much more convenient to just state that climate was stable and perfect until humans started releasing CO2. As Micheal Mann has proven with his hockey stick, indicating that the little ice age never existed. Tell that to all of the famine victims resulting from the cold climate

[fjlip]

Scotsman David Douglas came across it in 1827 so not unknown in 1843.

With high quality electronic instruments/thermometers/digital pics...ya right.
As good as native measurements.

[farmaholic]

Do you honestly think the Natives even noticed the ebb and flow of the glaciers over the decades, or handed down stories to the next generations about their changes over the centuries?

[Hamloc]

Still a little baffled as to why everyone continues arguing over whether or not human caused global warming is occurring. It doesn't matter what we think. Our governments through decades of targeted education have created the millennial generation which is driving political discourse. I read a recent opinion poll on what percentage of millennial's looked favourably on socialism. It was over 50%. They also look favourably on carbon taxes. Instead of arguing a point that is beyond our control, why not discuss how farmers will cope with the steep future rise of farm inputs derived from fossil fuels due to the imposition of a carbon tax that will only increase over time and that none of our biggest competitors at present pay?!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Still a little baffled as to why everyone continues arguing over whether or not human caused global warming is occurring. It doesn't matter what we think. Our governments through decades of targeted education have created the millennial generation which is driving political discourse. I read a recent opinion poll on what percentage of millennial's looked favourably on socialism. It was over 50%. They also look favourably on carbon taxes. Instead of arguing a point that is beyond our control, why not discuss how farmers will cope with the steep future rise of farm inputs derived from fossil fuels due to the imposition of a carbon tax that will only increase over time and that none of our biggest competitors at present pay?!

Scary stuff, and like you say, not much we can do but cope. Made all the more difficult when we can't even present a united front, with misguided socialists within the farming community asking to be taxed more, and supporting the anti industry/agriculture agenda.

[fjlip]

Scary stuff, and like you say, not much we can do but cope. Made all the more difficult when we can't even present a united front, with misguided socialists within the farming community asking to be taxed more, and supporting the anti industry/agriculture agenda.

And would rather CHOKE off vegetation due to less Than ideal CO2 levels all in the dream of SAVING the 7 billion too HOT people?

[oneoff]

CHUCKCHUCK 57
APR 1, 2018 10:04
And as far as any idea that we are heading into another ice age here is the science that says it is unlikely.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm

Climate Myth...

We're heading into an ice age
"One day you'll wake up - or you won't wake up, rather - buried beneath nine stories of snow. It's all part of a dependable, predictable cycle, a natural cycle that returns like clockwork every 11,500 years. And since the last ice age ended almost exactly 11,500 years ago…" (Ice Age Now)

According to ice cores from Antarctica, the past 400,000 years have been dominated by glacials, also known as ice ages, that last about 100,000. These glacials have been punctuated by interglacials, short warm periods which typically last 11,500 years. Figure 1 below shows how temperatures in Antarctica changed over this period. Because our current interglacial (the Holocene) has already lasted approximately 12,000 years, it has led some to claim that a new ice age is imminent. Is this a valid claim?


Lets look at the evidence. First chuck shows up on April Fool's Day

Second: Chuck Quotes from the above article that there is little chance of an ice age.. And if you look at the glacial/interglacial evidence that appears in the argument being advanced; the only thing standing between my hypothesis (independently advanced for a couple decades) is total agreement PLUS some equally wild theory of a somewhat weaker "Earth orbit and tilt" this time around (which comes from some author of no known credibility and of course chuck promoting by towing closely behind ). Chuck would have us believe that the upcoming ice age iterneation (on a par with the regular last four similar ice ages of about 100,000 years and interrupted by interglacial periods of about one tenth of that time period will not happen (on schedule) because of the off setting currently increasing CO2 content of the atmosphere and especially the "Earth orbit and tilt argument which isn't explained in any detail at all.


Don't be calling contrarions ...."know it all"s. Those persons may well have a better grasp on reality (and possibility) than those who are force feeding "climate change"

There is no reason to think chuck has any better grasp of an ice age than solar panels being in the significant immediate future of Saskatchewan. I'd also take issue with the Sask response (also quoted as saying that we seem to need to follow the lead of the rest of Canada and/or the world..but with made in Sask solutions.) It's just possible that carbon sequestration has already contributed more than Sask should be expected to contribute to the carbon reduction crusade. But did anyone see one word in that article repeated from the Provincial government release that recognizes the farmers very recent past implementation of direct seeding by the vast majority of prairie farmers. Two possibilities. First the Sask gov't failed to remember that argument (for whatever reason); or maybe the particular government response was chosen and printed so that argument was left out.

I'd love to reprint the chart in the link given to reader's by chuck. THat's the kind of evidence that non-believers feel free to quote...use it for their purposes and then throws in but one simple hypothesis that bebunks about as solid a repeating ll get. To disbelieve requires only a belief or hint of a " weaker Earth orbit and tilt " change to dismiss our last four severe ice ages from happening again. Those past glacial advances that reached all way into Wisconsin USA in a time period of the equivalent of a long blink of an eyelid since the Earth was formed.

Here's as much of chucks link to the article as I can get to properly copy. Please somebody post that accompanying chart.







We're heading into an ice age
"One day you'll wake up - or you won't wake up, rather - buried beneath nine stories of snow. It's all part of a dependable, predictable cycle, a natural cycle that returns like clockwork every 11,500 years. And since the last ice age ended almost exactly 11,500 years ago…" (Ice Age Now)

According to ice cores from Antarctica, the past 400,000 years have been dominated by glacials, also known as ice ages, that last about 100,000. These glacials have been punctuated by interglacials, short warm periods which typically last 11,500 years. Figure 1 below shows how temperatures in Antarctica changed over this period. Because our current interglacial (the Holocene) has already lasted approximately 12,000 years, it has led some to claim that a new ice age is imminent. Is this a valid claim?



Figure 1: Temperature change at Vostok, Antarctica (Petit 2000). The timing of warmer interglacials is highlighted in green; our current interglacial, the Holocene, is the one on the far right of the graph.

To answer this question, it is necessary to understand what has caused the shifts between ice ages and interglacials during this period. The cycle appears to be a response to changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt, which affect the amount of summer sunlight reaching the northern hemisphere. When this amount declines, the rate of summer melt declines and the ice sheets begin to grow. In turn, this increases the amount of sunlight reflected back into space, increasing (or amplifying) the cooling trend. Eventually a new ice age emerges and lasts for about 100,000 years.

So what are today’s conditions like? Changes in both the orbit and tilt of the Earth do indeed indicate that the Earth should be cooling. However, two reasons explain why an ice age is unlikely:

These two factors, orbit and tilt, are weak and are not acting within the same timescale – they are out of phase by about 10,000 years. This means that their combined effect would probably be too weak to trigger an ice age. You have to go back 430,000 years to find an interglacial with similar conditions, and this interglacial lasted about 30,000 years.
The warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors. Without human interference, the Earth’s orbit and tilt, a slight decline in solar output since the 1950s and volcanic activity would have led to global cooling. Yet global temperatures are definitely on the rise.
It can therefore be concluded that with CO2 concentrations set to continue to rise, a return to ice age conditions seems very unlikely. Instead, temperatures are increasing and this increase may come at a considerable cost with few or no benefits.

Basic rebuttal written by Anne-Marie Blackburn