# Mini freezing for next 30/year's I see



## ScottySkis (Apr 5, 2015)

This is great news for us. Time to buy pass to platty for 30 years lol


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 6, 2015)

Got a source for this info?


----------



## ScottySkis (Apr 6, 2015)

Yes I poet later


----------



## ScottySkis (Apr 12, 2015)

Less sun spots cooler earth mini freeze happening as I trype


----------



## catsup948 (Apr 13, 2015)

I get what Scotty is talking about.  I will try to find an article about it.  Times with little or no sunspot activity have led to cooler over all global temperatures.  Dalton Minimum in the 1800s, Maunder Minimum in the late 1600 early 1700s.  But from what I understand we can't expect a global cool down with the amount of global warming we have caused since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  Basically certain parts of the planet may have a period of cooling while others especially near the equator continue to warm every year.


----------



## Puck it (Apr 13, 2015)

Stop this is a rat hole that we have been down before!


----------



## bdfreetuna (Apr 14, 2015)

I'm sure hoping for another Dalton. This past winter had low sunspot activity although it's ticked up again in the last month or so. Judging by the way the last few solar cycles have been trending down, and this last one almost died out early, we probably have 2 or 3 years before we'll be far enough into the next cycle (or lack thereof) to make a reasonable guess. Anything could happen; it is the sun.

A Dalton scale event would easily mitigate any warming on a global scale. The papers would be calling this a "mini ice age", although it would probably not be something New Englanders can't easily adapt to. A Maunder would be a real mini ice age.

The effects of the sun going to sleep for a decade or more won't be missed and should easily outweigh the effects of accidental human climate intervention. Intentional human climate intervention will always be the wild card. "Mitigation" is the new buzz word at the climate conferences. Our technocratic climate saviors will simply not sit on the sidelines while the sun or other natural factors dictate our climate!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 14, 2015)

catsup948 said:


> we can't expect a global cool down with the amount of global warming we have caused since the beginning of the industrial revolution.



And yet, the earth has not warmed in nearly 20 years....

And yet, CO2 production has screamed past scientists' best case, base case, _AND _worst case scenarios during that same time-frame.

The 800lb elephant trumpeting in the corner is the fact that the hypothesis is broken.   Which is precisely why they're currently scrambling to determine why the earth hasnt warmed (ocean's absorbing more heat than previously thought, CO2 effect overstated, something......anything....).


----------



## Puck it (Apr 14, 2015)

The rat hole has started!!!!!!!


----------



## Not Sure (Apr 14, 2015)

Puck it said:


> The rat hole has started!!!!!!!



Ha ha .... Started by Scotty 
Ski withdrawal already


----------



## Jully (Apr 14, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> And yet, the earth has not warmed in nearly 20 years....
> 
> And yet, CO2 production has screamed past scientists' best case, base case, _AND _worst case scenarios during that same time-frame.
> 
> The 800lb elephant trumpeting in the corner is the fact that the hypothesis is broken.   Which is precisely why they're currently scrambling to determine why the earth hasnt warmed (ocean's absorbing more heat than previously thought, CO2 effect overstated, something......anything....).



This is SO not the place to get into it. But you're somehow incredibly misinformed. Yikes


----------



## catsup948 (Apr 14, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> And yet, the earth has not warmed in nearly 20 years....
> 
> And yet, CO2 production has screamed past scientists' best case, base case, _AND _worst case scenarios during that same time-frame.
> 
> The 800lb elephant trumpeting in the corner is the fact that the hypothesis is broken.   Which is precisely why they're currently scrambling to determine why the earth hasnt warmed (ocean's absorbing more heat than previously thought, CO2 effect overstated, something......anything....).



Honestly do you wait until I post something just to quote me and say I'm wrong?  

Since 2000 the earth has stopped warming.  But before that it was rapidly warming. 

http://www.climate.gov/news-feature...s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

Temps near the equator were higher than normal the last several years.  Other regions being below normal may off set this.  I need to find the article I read about sunspot activity, it has a nice caveat about "global warming" taking part in us not totally going into an ice age if sunspot activity diminishes for a prolonged period.

Global Warming is a different debate.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Apr 14, 2015)

One major and relevant goal is to melt the Arctic for resource exploitation while keeping most populated (east coast and south) areas of US cool.

Overall there is little to be alarmed about regarding changes in the climate over the last century. When people get their heads out of the sand and demand a stop to climate intervention / climate engineering we should see the "hot zones" and "cold zones" mix together again.

The prize for whomever melts the Arctic and exploits those resources is massive and could determine the next century futures for either USA or Russia and allies. Since the 1930's it's been proposed to intentionally melt this ice. Recently people are catching on to how it's being done.

Operation Ice Bridge is all about how to keep Greenland frozen even as a "persistent ridge" of high pressure of the coast of California diverts warm air up to Alaska, melting ice on the other side of the Arctic (where it's both more easily accessible and less of a threat to sea levels -- which is only a threat in the eyes of the uninformed masses anyway).


----------



## Puck it (Apr 14, 2015)

bdfreetuna said:


> One major and relevant goal is to melt the Arctic for resource exploitation while keeping most populated (east coast and south) areas of US cool.
> 
> Overall there is little to be alarmed about regarding changes in the climate over the last century. When people get their heads out of the sand and demand a stop to climate intervention / climate engineering we should see the "hot zones" and "cold zones" mix together again.
> 
> ...


Did you crash and hit your head?


----------



## bdfreetuna (Apr 14, 2015)

Puck it said:


> Did you crash and hit your head?



Is this topic a problem for you? So far 4 posts in the thread trying to shut it down early with no contribution.

Maybe there's a thread that interests you somewhere around here. Go look.


----------



## Puck it (Apr 14, 2015)

bdfreetuna said:


> Is this topic a problem for you? So far 4 posts in the thread trying to shut it down early with no contribution.
> 
> Maybe there's a thread that interests you somewhere around here. Go look.


Not really only because these just go no where and fast.  And your post here and contrail posts seems like you are a conspiracy theorist all the way.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Apr 14, 2015)

Puck it said:


> Not really only because these just go no where and fast.  And your post here and contrail posts seems like you are a conspiracy theorist all the way.



Speaking of contrails and on the topic of climate change...
Global radiative forcing from contrail cirrus. Nature.com

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/full/nclimate1068.html

Turns out they cause warming. With sulfur added to JP8 jet fuel they cause even more.

^^
And that's what dumbasses call "conspiracy theory".


----------



## Puck it (Apr 14, 2015)

bdfreetuna said:


> Speaking of contrails and on the topic of climate change...
> Global radiative forcing from contrail cirrus. Nature.com
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/full/nclimate1068.html
> ...


That is not intentional like your seeding conspiracy theory.

BTW, before you call people dumbass. Know who you are talking to.


----------



## Not Sure (Apr 14, 2015)

bdfreetuna said:


> Speaking of contrails and on the topic of climate change...
> Global radiative forcing from contrail cirrus. Nature.com
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/full/nclimate1068.html
> ...



That Contrail study is pure crap.
My "Firsthand experience "as a glider pilot flying from clear areas though areas obscured by contrails and back to clear areas .
There is a "Significant" difference in the thermal lift rates of climb , much lower and even sometimes non existant. According to that study there should be more heat reflected back to the ground , if that were the case the climb rates should be higher as heat is the cause of thermals in the first place.
Crap reference purely coincidence:-D


----------



## bdfreetuna (Apr 14, 2015)

Please explain my "seeding conspiracy theory". I'm curious to hear how a dumbass managed to misinterpret the clear explanation of established science and transparent policies I provided overwhelming proof of. 

This is what I'm talking about. You're completely out of your element yet you still feel the need to control the dialogue by either dumbing or shutting it down. Classic dumbass trait.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Apr 14, 2015)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> That Contrail study is pure crap.
> My "Firsthand experience "as a glider pilot flying from clear areas though areas obscured by contrails and back to clear areas .
> There is a "Significant" difference in the thermal lift rates of climb , much lower and even sometimes non existant. According to that study there should be more heat reflected back to the ground , if that were the case the climb rates should be higher as heat is the cause of thermals in the first place.
> Crap reference purely coincidence:-D



Read more carefully. Overall cooling effect in daytime. Overall warming effect at night, making for net warming effect (though minor). Only accounts for "linear contrails", not those that have fanned out.


----------



## Puck it (Apr 14, 2015)

bdfreetuna said:


> Please explain my "seeding conspiracy theory". I'm curious to hear how a dumbass managed to misinterpret the clear explanation of established science and transparent policies I provided overwhelming proof of.
> 
> This is what I'm talking about. You're completely out of your element yet you still feel the need to control the dialogue by either dumbing or shutting it down. Classic dumbass trait.



What are you?  Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

Trying to shut it down is not a dumbass trait.  I am trying avoid the place that all of these discussions go.  The two sides of this will never see eye to eye or want to compromise. 
Out of my element is laughable.  You really need to know your audience before you spout dumbass all the over the place. I will just leave it at that.


----------



## catsup948 (Apr 14, 2015)

I don't understand what any of this has to do with sun spot activity.


----------



## Puck it (Apr 14, 2015)

catsup948 said:


> I don't understand what any of this has to do with sun spot activity.


Absolutely nothing.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Apr 14, 2015)

Puck it said:


> What are you?  Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?



You started this asking if I was dropped on my head. After trying to shut down other people for staying on topic or showing interest in the subject.



Puck it said:


> Trying to shut it down is not a dumbass trait.  I am trying avoid the place that all of these discussions go.



How thoughtful. I really had you wrong.


----------



## Puck it (Apr 14, 2015)

bdfreetuna said:


> You started this asking if I was dropped on my head. After trying to shut down other people for staying on topic or showing interest in the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> How thoughtful. I really had you wrong.


 For future reference, you really need to know who you are calling a dumbass too.
Are you wearing a foil hat too?


----------



## bdfreetuna (Apr 14, 2015)

Tin foil dunce cap.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 14, 2015)

Jully said:


> This is SO not the place to get into it. But *you're somehow incredibly misinformed. Yikes*



Both of the 2 points I made in that post regarding "the pause" as well as skyrocketing CO2 levels, are science fact, not science fiction, acknowledged (begrudgingly and lately) by the very IPCC Global Warming scientists running this show.   

The fact that you are wholly unaware of this suggests you likely get your "information" from non-credible and biased sources.  Yikes.


----------



## Rowsdower (Apr 14, 2015)

When I eat a lot of Mexican food the room feels warmer 2-3 hours afterwards. 

Explain that science!


----------



## ScottySkis (Apr 15, 2015)

This thread should be good for us winter lovers more snow and cold very good news for natural snow hills Roxbury NY and snow and less rainnnnn events in winter.


----------



## catsup948 (Apr 15, 2015)

This thread has lost my interest.  You guys should start another global warming thread and have at it.


----------



## Jully (Apr 15, 2015)

bdfreetuna said:


> Speaking of contrails and on the topic of climate change...
> Global radiative forcing from contrail cirrus. Nature.com
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/full/nclimate1068.html
> ...



I don't think people were calling the fact that contrails persist a conspiracy theory. We all see contrails everyday persisting in the sky and yes, the sulfur in jet fuel among other things is going to cause albedo and a host of other effects (as said in that article).

The conspiracy that people are accusing you of, from what I remember from the last time contrails came up here, was that the government is actively participating in wide-scale seeding and that anytime we see a contrail sticking around in the sky it is actually a seeding event.

I could be completely wrong. Either way, that's a really interesting article you've got there! Like the authors state, research on the impacts of aviation on climate is severely lacking.


----------



## Jully (Apr 15, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> Both of the 2 points I made in that post regarding "the pause" as well as skyrocketing CO2 levels, are science fact, not science fiction, acknowledged (begrudgingly and lately) by the very IPCC Global Warming scientists running this show.
> 
> The fact that you are wholly unaware of this suggests you likely get your "information" from non-credible and biased sources.  Yikes.



Um, you have absolutely no idea where I'm getting my information from. My information is coming from the IPCC you so lovingly brought up, peer reviewed articles, and others with masters and PhDs in the area. I would ask that you not mock me and act like an adult. I’d rather not be insulted by you in an insanely condescending way after you post something that is clearly meant to be inflammatory. It’s not fun for anyone except maybe you if you get off on it.

CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere, the oceans, are absorbing significant amounts of heat, and I assure you, no one is "scrambling" like you said in your previous post.

There is no broken hypothesis here. The greenhouse effect is still an entirely valid theory. Its been understood for well over a century and without it the earth would be uninhabitable. The earth, through the greenhouse effect, is retaining more energy from the sun than it has in human existence right now, and as long as methane, CO2, and dozens of other molecules continue to increase in concentration in the atmosphere. There is no broken hypothesis there.

The impact on the air temperature however, yes varies a ton and that release by the IPCC has to do with that. You say you are citing "science fact" but you said that:

-the earth hasn't warmed in 20 years – sort of not really correct, as debated already by others. But beyond what others have said, so many other factors go into what actually happens to the earth’s air temperature that no one truly knows how the earth’s climate responds. What is understood is that the earth’s climate due to manmade changes in the atmosphere is now much more unstable. The US Navy released a report that the arctic might be seasonally ice free as early as summer 2016. Next summer. Will it get there? We’ll find out in a year, but either way, it means the earth is unstable. Do you think the report by the navy is total crap? Take it up with them and provide sufficient scientific evidence and models that prove otherwise and maybe you can get something published somewhere refuting their claim. That’s how science and research works. 
-the CO2 levels are rising, yes that's true no one debates you there, 
- AND most importantly "The 800lb elephant trumpeting in the corner is the fact that the hypothesis is broken. Which is precisely why they're currently scrambling to determine why the earth hasnt warmed (ocean's absorbing more heat than previously thought, CO2 effect overstated, something......anything....)." 

There is no fact in that last point. You sort of brought up working hypotheses in the current climate science community. No one fully understands how the earth responds to such an increase in absorption of the sun's energy because the earth is an incredibly complex system.

There is no overstating of the CO2 effect, that's called the greenhouse effect, and its why we are all alive today.

And yes, the response of the oceans no one can fully predict right now.

All you did was condescend on something you know very little about. You then proceeded to blatantly attack me without any knowledge of who I am, what I know, and where I get my information from. You apparently don’t fully understand how the scientific process works. Everything is a working theory and there are so so so many different factors that will influence how much warming actually happens to the earth’s atmosphere. Sunspots are one of those factors! 

Why are you so mean to everyone who ever says anything against you on this forum? You are clearly well educated and know a lot about a lot of different things. But you freak out on anyone who says anything different, even when you don’t know all the facts or understand the basis behind the evidence that you’ve read online somewhere. It tends to ruin what otherwise is a wonderful experience on these boards.


----------



## Puck it (Apr 15, 2015)

Here we go ahead!


----------



## bdfreetuna (Apr 15, 2015)

Jully said:


> I don't think people were calling the fact that contrails persist a conspiracy theory. We all see contrails everyday persisting in the sky and yes, the sulfur in jet fuel among other things is going to cause albedo and a host of other effects (as said in that article).
> 
> The conspiracy that people are accusing you of, from what I remember from the last time contrails came up here, was that the government is actively participating in wide-scale seeding and that anytime we see a contrail sticking around in the sky it is actually a seeding event.
> 
> I could be completely wrong. Either way, that's a really interesting article you've got there! Like the authors state, research on the impacts of aviation on climate is severely lacking.



I had mentioned cloud seeding and when questioned provided a wealth of direct links to government, research and media sources confirming my statement.

VTKilarny started into the contrails thing putting words in my mouth, mostly putting his foot in his own mouth and demonstrating lack of integrity. Trying to turn it into some chemtrail debate to distract from an established and non-controversial topic.

Glad you enjoyed the article though. Just one of those things you find trying to learn about conspiracy theories like "the weather" and generally trying to educate one's self on a variety of topics.


----------



## VTKilarney (Apr 15, 2015)

Tuna,

The links you gave talk about chemtrails.  I just read what you linked to.  




.


----------



## Rowsdower (Apr 15, 2015)

The great thing about science is you don't have to believe it for it to be true.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Apr 15, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> Tuna,
> 
> The links you gave talk about chemtrails.  I just read what you linked to.



Even if that wasn't a blatant lie, what's your serious hangup? My understanding is whatever you keep talking about with the chemtrails is most likely and most of the time contrails.

Other times aerosols are being used for various tropospheric tests, as well as seeding, tracers used to measure wind, military chaff, and building cloud cover to obscure Air Force exercises... the list goes on why it can appear there's more than the usual amount of "stuff" coming out of a plane.

But yeah we can just wrap all those topics under the header of "chemtrails" and ban the subject.


----------



## VTKilarney (Apr 16, 2015)

bdfreetuna said:


> Even if that wasn't a blatant lie, what's your serious hangup?


Okay, now you are just pissing me off.  It's one thing to be a clueless fool about weather modification.  But it's another thing to erroneously accuse me of telling a "blatant lie."

To show just how clueless you are:
You posted this link: http://climateviewer.com/2013/10/06/climate-engineering-programs/

Specifically, you posted the link in post #40 in the thread entitled "Tuesday March 10th - Sunday March 15th."  Go back and take a look.  I'll wait...  

Now click on that link that you posted.  Look on the right hand side.  Look under the section entitled "Popular Posts".
In that section, you will see the following:
- "Chemtrails, Calmatives, and Terrorism"

Now look at the "Latest News" section underneath, where you will see:
- "EPA Takes Stance on Aircraft Chemtrail Debate"
- "Chemtrails Explained: The Geoengineering SRM Field Experiment"
- "HAARP Report: Chemtrails bad, Geoengineering SRM Good?"
-  "Aluminum, Barium, and Chemtrails Explained – JUST THE FACTS"

And this is just a sample from the site that you linked.

Now let's look at another site you linked to in post #57 in the same thread: http://www.oilfreefun.com/2012/12/timeline-history-of-weather.html

On that site's homepage we see the following:
- "Chemtrails, Aerosol Geoengineering and Bioengineer..."
- "You're invited to the JH Powderhound Pubcrawl Protest Against Chemtrails and Geoengineering..."

So the next time you attack my character, you had better check your facts first.  I guess I shouldn't have expected better from someone who suggested that the northeast USA is "upwind" from the western United States.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Apr 16, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> So the next time you attack my character, you had better check your facts first.  I guess I shouldn't have expected better from someone who suggested that the northeast USA is "upwind" from the western United States.



There's lie #2. You're a real piece of work. You invented that whole upwind idea in the first place and tried to get me to bite.

Just because I don't respond in kind to absurdity does not mean I endorse whatever it is you're talking about.

Obviously by your behavior and your link to "contrail science .com" you've got some kind of psychological trigger in effect. I send you a link to an article listing and documenting 100 years of climate modification and you go searching around to see if "chemtrail" is mentioned in any other articles.

You must also not be aware that there are many places in the world, and even online, where people do not limit themselves to your preferred topics.

Anyway glad to have pissed you off. You deserve it.


----------



## VTKilarney (Apr 16, 2015)

Wow.  You still insist that it was a "blatant lie" to say that links you provided had information about chemtrails - even after showing exactly how and where they did.  Well... I guess if you are so confused by actual evidence in this case, it says a lot about your ability to look at other types of evidence.  By why let facts get in the way of a crackpot theory.

And if by linking to a science based website (contrailscience.com) you believe that I have a psychological trigger... consider me extremely proud to have that psychological trigger.  The trigger goes something like this: "Gee, someone posted something that seems really wacky.  Maybe before I believe it I should look into the science behind the claim and the empirical evidence."

Compare that to: "But an online article says its true!"

I'll take my method any day.

I'm off to get vaccinated.  Getting vaccinated is a real smart thing to do.  And after that I'll have a nice glass of fluorinated water.  While I do those things you can reshape your tin foil hat.

In all seriousness, perhaps you should remember just one thing: The first rule of holes is to stop digging.  You screwed up.  I pointed out your mistake.  Have some character and be man enough to admit it and move on.  It's not hard to do.


----------



## Scruffy (Apr 16, 2015)

We almost made it out of ski season this year without a global warming/government conspiracy theory knock down drag-out fight. Congrats, you've made in just under the wire.

It's amazing how we can all be friends and ski together, then we bring up shit like this, and we hate each other. Can we keep this a ski forum?


----------



## ScottySkis (Apr 16, 2015)

Scruffy said:


> We almost made it out of ski season this year without a global warming/government conspiracy theory knock down drag-out fight. Congrats, you've made in just under the wire.
> 
> It's amazing how we can all be friends and ski together, then we bring up shit like this, and we hate each other. Can we keep this a ski forum?


Yes perfect post+420077000


----------



## Jcb890 (Apr 16, 2015)

Rowsdower said:


> The great thing about science is you don't have to believe it for it to be true.



:lol: I like how there's some people who genuinely don't believe in global warming.


----------



## Not Sure (Apr 17, 2015)

Jcb890 said:


> :lol: I like how there's some people who genuinely don't believe in global warming.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

I'm skeptical , you can trust science but maybe not the scientist

There's more of a focus on Carbon as the "Biggest" cause of Greenhouse gases in global warming , Why?
If I were advocating for global warming I would say Heat causes global warming . All the fossil fuels being burned.
$$$$$$ Cap and trade . convince the masses Carbon is the problem and you create a whole new revenue stream.Falls under the politicians comment "Never let a good crisis go to waste" 



While I feel strongly about protecting the environment some so called green products CFL's contain mercury 
Saving energy and a clean environment is a important but I don't like being played  by some fat energy wasting Politician


----------



## Jcb890 (Apr 17, 2015)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
> 
> I'm skeptical , you can trust science but maybe not the scientist
> 
> ...



I said nothing about Carbon or the politics involved.  I don't want to get into that.  I just find it amusing people don't buy into Global Warming being a real thing.


----------



## CoolMike (Apr 17, 2015)

Deleted.  Who cares.  Climate change is real.

The atmosphere and oceans being abnormally highly concentrated with CO2 is a problem in its own right....


----------

