Natural sun cycles will bring worst cold in 200 years

Written by John L. Casey, Orlando Sentinel

“We are not capable of addressing climate change.” Such was the lead sentence of climate-change guest columnist Gregory Willits, in the Dec. 24 edition of the Orlando Sentinel (“Let’s accept climate change and deal with it in a big way”). It was an accurate statement to be sure, but for all the wrong reasons.John L Casey

Willits, an avowed “green” enthusiast, went on to strongly support the building of sea walls to keep out the predicted rising sea levels that the world’s greatest climate scaremonger, Al Gore, has said will swamp most of Florida with 21 feet of sea water by the year 2100. Yes, we are not capable of addressing climate change — the truth about climate change, that is.

The truth of what is really happening to the climate versus the United Nations and current U.S. government version is, however, a bit hard to accept after two decades of global-warming propaganda. I know. It was for me in April 2007, after finishing some research into solar activity.

I had concluded that global warming was ending and a potentially dangerous cold climate was beginning. Such was my first public climate prediction with several more to follow.

My announcement then to the White House, Congress and the mainstream media was, of course, greeted with the expected indifference, ridicule and even slander.

Now, it’s almost seven years later, and the track record of my Space and Science Research Corp. in making major climate-change predictions is one of the best in the United States, according to public records.

To keep track of these predictions and the actual climate status of the Earth, the SSRC publishes the Global Climate Status Report. It is an authoritative, quarterly, apolitical, climate report published in the U.S., where anyone who wants the unvarnished status of the Earth’s climate can find it. The latest edition, Dec. 10, shows that of 24 climate parameters, 18 show global cooling as the dominant trend. All may soon show a cooling trend.

My research, which incorporates climate data from government sources and the work of other researchers, shows that Earth’s global temperature average has had no effective growth for 16 years.

More important, the Earth’s oceans have been cooling for 10 years and the atmosphere for seven years. The global-climate models of temperature and sea-level increases that the United Nations’ manmade global-warming zealots have used to justify their actions are simply wrong by a wide margin — not just in my view, but in the views of many other researchers around the world.

According to the hard climate data and not the politics of climate change, global warming ended years ago, exactly when it was supposed to, according to natural cycles of the sun, the primary controller of climate change on Earth.

The next climate change to a long, cold era may well reshape the future of humankind through massive global crop losses, social upheaval and significant loss of life.

Scientists at the Russian Academy of Sciences have said a new “Little Ice Age” will start in 2014. The SSRC and many other scientists worldwide say that the worst cold in more than 200 years is now upon us.

Further, if this next cold climate behaves like the last similar one (1793-1830), then we may also see some of the worst-ever earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The sun regulates more than we have been told.

The sea walls and numerous other barriers to the truth about the Earth’s climate status have already been built to enormous heights. We need no more.

—————–

John L. Casey is the president of the Space and Science Research Corp. in Orlando.

Read more at www.orlandosentinel.com

Comments (27)

  • Avatar

    Kendall

    |

    Shopper Approved is based on the powerful concept
    called ‘social proof’, which states that:

    When a potential customer goes online to buy a product or service, they actually want and actively
    look for reassurance that they’re making the right decision. And
    the way they get that assurance is
    from other customers’ ratings, feedback, and reviews.

    This is why statistically, 77% of online shoppers turn to consumer reviews before they decide to buy!

    There’s a reason why Amazon, eBay, Sears, and pretty much every
    other major ecommerce site have customer
    ratings and reviews integrated into their website.
    It’s because online reviews have been proven to increase
    conversion, increase average transaction amounts, improve customer satisfaction, and
    even lower product
    returns!

    Check Out The Link In Signature

    Have a look at my page … [url=http://www.Shopperapproved.com/21051]Questionnaire Examples[/url]

  • Avatar

    Brian Daed

    |

    I have been examining the Milankovitch cycles with respect to a both ancient and modern (hoebeit at all times controversial) astronomical hypothesis. That is another discussion.
    The Milankovitch roughly agree with the Geenland and Antarctic ice-cores (we have to allow for a 13,000 year phase shift between the two). Now the antarctic shows nearly 4 complete cycles of about 110,000 years while greenland shows nearly 1 complete cycle. This means that greenland melts down completely at the end of each cycle. However, it also means that Antarctica started forming 4 cycles ago. This pattern is shown in the Milankovich cycles.
    Here is the issue. The Milankovich cycles show a common node every 4 cycles of about 440,000 years which agrees Antarctica.
    The polar meltdown of 10,000 to 7,000 BC raised the ocean levels 300 feet in 3,000 years, or an average of 10 feet per century, probably peaking at 2 to 3 times that. It was not sudden, and the people could easily move their farms, if their uphill neighbors would kindly abandon their farms. This is the stuff of constant warfare.
    Now at the end of this cycle both Greenland and Antarctica should fully melt-down, causing more migrations of desparate nations who no longer have into the uphill territory of those that still have. This is what the wrangling is all about.

  • Avatar

    HSaive

    |

    The Global Warming crooks have been spraying chemtrails to warm the climate since the mid-1990’s. The payoff is $trillions in global carbon tax, green-scam legislation and geoengineered heat to warm the arctic so Big Oil will have easier access to drilling. Read this:

    Agenda for Big Oil to use chemtrails and environmental weapons to warm the arctic is becoming more obvious.
    http://wp.me/p2FjTj-3EF

    Commercial Airlines Spray Chemtrails to Melt Polar Ice For Big Oil
    http://wp.me/p2FjTj-3DW
    8)

  • Avatar

    Brian Daed

    |

    I have started a bit of a difficult research project into the real data on global warming in quest of the real values.
    From a pdf document from NASA I obtained some preliminary information as pertains to latitude of 45 degrees.
    My statement about global warming being natural has proved to be more extreme than I imagined, (but within exit radiation expectations).
    At 45 degrees latitude the mean temperature is about 15 C. The temperature drops with altitude to about -60 C at 12 kilometers. Then it holds steady for the next 8 kilometers.
    This indicates that global warming accounts for a 75 C differential. Worrying about a 1 or 2 degree difference as compared to 75 degrees is like being in a blizzard and worrying if the parka is the wrong color.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”carlallen”]
    In a study that I did of arid air in Nevada vs. humid air in Mississippi using data from two SURFRAD sites maintained by NOAA I observed that the mean “radiation heat transfer rate” from the surface to the air (the net up-going longwave radiation minus that which exits via the “atmospheric window”) was 10 W/m^2 in Nevada and only 5 W/m^2 in Mississippi. So, as the arid air’s emissivity increased from 0.74 in Nevada to 0.88 in Mississippi due to a 250% increase in absolute humidity the amount of heat that transferred from the ground to the air via IR radiation dropped by 50%! Ergo, “greenhouse gases” inhibit the ability of air to be “heated” via IR radiation, because they simultaneously cause the air to be cooled via IR radiation at a faster rate.
    .
    The great thing is that you don’t have to take my word for it. You can visit [url]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/ [/url]and see for yourself that increased humidity levels decrease the surface’s “net radiation heat loss rate”, i.e., reduce not only the size of the “atmospheric window” but also the rate at which heat moves from the surface to the air via IR radiation.Carl[/quote]

    Carl, thank you. When were you at dessert rock?
    I have looked at the NOAA reference and some of the dra data. Does NOAA havge any guess as to what they are measuring in the IR? For the upside down prygeometer (upwelling) they are “measuring only the “flux” between thye body and the dome. The (downwelling) prygeometer does a bit better at night depending on how it
    was calibrated (or their “callibrating pyrgeometer was calibrated). The transmissivity of the silicon window at most wavelengths is so bad that they are blind to external flux! A germanium window would be better but still cannot get out to 50 microns needed to measure flux to a slightly lower temperature absorber, or a slightly higher temperature emitter.
    Since you were there can you give yourown evaluation of what such measurements are mkesuring? I see not even one surface sensible heat “flux” sensor ever mentioned.
    However did you do you measure outward “flux” in the 8-13.5 micron band?

  • Avatar

    carlallen

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Does an increase in atmospheric CO2, whih no phase change, increase or decrease the mean surface temperature? Why? Give three examples of what is?[/quote]
    .
    Just think about the hypothesis that asserts that increasing carbon dioxide levels are suppose to increase the amount of heat that transfers from the ground to the air via IR radiation thus warming the air. The “radiation heat transfer rate” formula asserts that increasing the amount of IR radiation that the cooler body emits reduces the “radiation heat transfer rate” and this is the supposed reason that “greenhouse gases” keep the surface warmer, i.e., they reduce the amount of heat is being transferred via IR radiation both to the atmosphere and out into space. Since a joule of thermal energy cannot be in two places at once, it cannot warm both the surface and the air at the same time.
    .
    In a study that I did of arid air in Nevada vs. humid air in Mississippi using data from two SURFRAD sites maintained by NOAA I observed that the mean “radiation heat transfer rate” from the surface to the air (the net up-going longwave radiation minus that which exits via the “atmospheric window”) was 10 W/m^2 in Nevada and only 5 W/m^2 in Mississippi. So, as the arid air’s emissivity increased from 0.74 in Nevada to 0.88 in Mississippi due to a 250% increase in absolute humidity the amount of heat that transferred from the ground to the air via IR radiation dropped by 50%! Ergo, “greenhouse gases” inhibit the ability of air to be “heated” via IR radiation, because they simultaneously cause the air to be cooled via IR radiation at a faster rate.
    .
    The great thing is that you don’t have to take my word for it. You can visit [url]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/ [/url]and see for yourself that increased humidity levels decrease the surface’s “net radiation heat loss rate”, i.e., reduce not only the size of the “atmospheric window” but also the rate at which heat moves from the surface to the air via IR radiation.
    .
    The surface has multiple pathways to loose heat: conduction, convection, latent heat transfer and radiation transfer. The atmosphere has only one pathway to loose heat: the emission of IR radiation out into space. I have observed that “greenhouse gases” increase the emissivity of the atmosphere, which prompts it to emit more IR radiation at a lower temperature (even though the air at the Mississippi site was cooler than the air at the Nevada site it was emitting 51 W/m^2 more IR radiation 24/7/52.) I can think of no examples in nature in which enhancing the emissivity of matter prompts it to retain more thermal energy.
    .
    The only way that CO2 could force the atmosphere to retain more thermal energy is if it were to decrease the emissivity of the air, which is not possible since the emissivity of CO2 is ~0.20 and the emissivity of 98% of the atmosphere (nitrogen and oxygen) is < 0.10
    .
    The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is built around the notion that “greenhouse gases”, contrary to Kirchhoff’s Law, increase the absorptivity of the air without simultaneously increasing its emissivity .
    .
    Carl

  • Avatar

    carlallen

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Does an increase in atmospheric CO2, whih no phase change, increase or decrease the mean surface temperature? Why? Give three examples of what is?[/quote]
    .
    There have been several notable attempts to measure the ability of CO2 to alter air temperature.
    .
    1) John Tyndall tested regular air in his apparatus, which at the time had a CO2 concentration of ~290 ppm. He said, [i]“Through air . . . the waves of ether pass without absorption, and these gases are not sensibly changed in temperature by the most powerful calorific rays.”[/i]
    .
    He also tested carbon dioxide at 8,000 ppm and this is what he said,[i]“Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources. It is, for example, [b]extremely transparent[/b] to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate already referred to.” [/i]This is why John Tyndall in his lectures confined his “blanket effect” to water vapor only.
    .
    2) In the early 20th century Knut Ångström (1857 – 1910) filled a tube with the same amount of CO2 as is in a column of air from sea level to the “top of the atmosphere” and ran IR radiation through it and then doubled it and repeated the test. He observed no change in the temperature of the gas.
    .
    3) Millions of hours of the commercial use of infrared heaters have lead manufacturers to conclude that you cannot heat air with IR radiation.
    .
    [i]“Infrared energy travels at the speed of light [b]without heating the air it passes through[/b], the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor and other particles in the air typically is negligible.”
    .
    “Infrared heating technology by definition [b]does not heat up the air[/b], instead it targets the objects leaving the Oxygen and humidity intact.”
    .
    “These infrared rays pass through the air in the room and start heating any object they hit. These rays, however, [b]do not heat the air[/b] of the room or area . . .”[/i]
    .

    Carl

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    -skip- What Tyndell said and should not have said. As it is a history of both “truths combineded with errors that can be agreed upon “maybe”-

    [quote name=”carlallen”
    The climate scare is not that “greenhouse gases” are going to cause a catastrophic narrowing of the diurnal temperature swing, yet beyond predictably dropping the local mean temperature somewhat that is all that water vapor does..
    Carl[/quote]

    Very Good! carlallen (Mr.or Dr.Brehmer) “sorry if I got that all wrong”. Increasing atmospheric aqueous vapor both “reduces” the mean surface temperature, but also “reduces” the diurnal temperature swing via latent heat. Does an increase in atmospheric CO2, whih no phase change, increase or decrease the mean surface temperature? Why? Give three examples of what is?

  • Avatar

    carlallen

    |

    [quote name=”John Morland”]In fact CO’2 small IR absorption was confirmed in John Tyndell’s notes identifying CO2 as the weakest absorber of “the calorific rays” of all the gases he experimented with. Water vapour was the strongest (another thing the alarmists won’t tell you).[/quote]
    .
    Here is what John Tyndall actually said about water vapor in his famous “Rede” Lecture. [url]https://archive.org/stream/onradiationredel00tynd#page/n7/mode/2up[/url]
    .
    [i]“Compared with the great body of the air, the aqueous vapor it contains is of almost infinitesimal amount, 99 ½ out of every 100 parts of the atmosphere being composed of oxygen and nitrogen. In the absence of experiment, we should never think of ascribing to this scant and varying constituent any important influence on terrestrial radiation;”[/i] He even revealed that his apparatus had difficulty measuring the IR radiation absorbing ability of water vapor because it kept condensing out of the air that he was testing. All that he was prepared to say was the following: [i]“The peculiar qualities of this vapour [H2O] and the circumstance that at ordinary temperatures it is very near its point of condensation, render the results which it yields in the apparatus already described, less than the truth; and I am not prepared to say that the absorption by this substance is not 200 times that of the air in which it is diffused.” [/i]
    .
    Because he wasn’t able to actually test water vapor in his apparatus you will not find it on his table of results.
    .
    In spite of these statements he, within the same lecture, went on to do what he said shouldn’t be done and asserted that because water vapor absorbs “the heat that endeavours to escape from earth . . . the mean temperature of our planet is higher than is due to its distance from the sun.”
    .
    Unfortunately Tyndall, although meticulous in his lab, never did any testing on the actual open atmosphere to verify his claim that water vapor raises the [b]mean[/b] temperature of our planet. All that he observed is that its presence is associated with a marked decrease in the diurnal temperature swing.
    .
    [i]“Whenever the air is dry we are liable to daily extremes of temperature. By day in such places, the sun’s heat reaches the earth unimpeded and renders the maximum high; by night on the other hand the earth’s heat escapes unhindered into space and renders the minimum low. Hence the difference between the maximum and minimum is greatest where the air is driest.
    “In the plains of India, on the heights of the Himalaya, in Central Asia, in Australia—wherever drought reigns, we have the heat of day forcibly contrasted with the chill of night. In the Sahara itself, when the sun’s rays cease to impinge on the burning soil the temperature runs rapidly down to freezing, because there is no vapour overhead to check the calorific drain.”[/i]
    .
    The climate scare is not that “greenhouse gases” are going to cause a catastrophic narrowing of the diurnal temperature swing, yet beyond predictably dropping the local mean temperature somewhat that is all that water vapor does.
    .
    Carl

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk Solving Tornadoe

    |

    [quote name=”Brian Daed”]It is very simple.[/quote]It’s a good thing you told me this because that is not something I would have guessed.[quote name=”Brian Daed”] CO2 is heavy so it will settle below and act as a “blanket” for the IR exit radiation.[/quote]Is there some reason you are withholding from us how it is that you, supposedly, came to know that CO2 can, to use your words, “act as a ‘blanket’ for the IR exit radiation?”

  • Avatar

    Brian Daed

    |

    [quote name=”Claudius Denk Solving Tornadoe”][quote name=”Brian Daed”]CO2 global warming is normal. The coastal flood plains confirm this. By the numbers, without it we would have full ice-age, which may give a clue as to the cause of the ice-ages.[/quote]Tell us what evidence you employed (if any) to come to this conclusion.

    Or is it your own special secret?[/quote]

    It is very simple.
    Item 1: If you take the total water available from Greenland and Antarctica, and also include the consequential rising of the buried landmass, the water levels would just about just about equal the coastal lowlands including those interior lowlands that communicate to the ocean.
    Item 2: In order to date the Ice at Vostok at 400,000 years, it is probably more, or the ice in Greenland at over 100,000 years, the ice had to have an ice-free beginning.
    Item 3: This is a matter of fossil records and modern observations. The length of the anaconda for one has been officially been given as 25 feet. Unofficially the length has been given as 50 to 70 feet. The latter is confirmed by the pet stores and by the people living in South America. From friends from South America I get the answer. Past 25 feet an anaconda is two big to come on land. Why 25 feet? The answer is my main issue with most of the giant monster movies (good for a laugh though). If you ever employ a water pump you will note that the maximum lift is 25 feet due to atmospheric pressure. This effect is used in the barometer with a limit of 30 in if mercury. If you jump off of a building landing feet first with a 5+ g-force you will die from an air bubble in the brain. This is from the modern world. From the ancient world we have giant eagles that would not be able to fly in our air, and “top-heavy” land animals of such a heighth that their blood would drain from their heads, remember the water-pump? Therefore, in times past the air-pressure was much higher than now.
    Item 4: By examining the solar equilibrium temperature 370 K and dividing it by the 4th root of pi, you get a maximum infrared exit temperature of just barely above freezing. This does not include losses from reflected radiation. The figure has to be multiplied by the 4th root of the albedo. To this however can be added the 4th root of the radiation from nuclear decay in the Earth. All in all the Earth is a cold planet. Any “hotspot” will make the remainder even colder. However, this is what you will measure at the top of the atmosphere. CO2 is heavy so it will settle below and act as a “banket” for the IR exit radiation. Therefore we have a heat wave in Kenya, snow on Kilimanjaro, and a definite “timberline” since plants need CO2 to grow.
    Now tall, dead, popcicles are not much good at typing their arguments on a computer keyboard, therefore neither you nor I are tall, dead, popsicles.
    However, there is a natural limit. Heat engine mechanics will cause a free system to “roll over.” This is my issue with the “runaway” greenhouse effect theory.

  • Avatar

    John Morland

    |

    In fact CO’2 small IR absorption was confirmed in John Tyndell’s notes identifying CO2 as the weakest absorber of “the calorific rays” of all the gases he experimented with. Water vapour was the strongest (another thing the alarmists won’t tell you).

    Neither will alarmists tell you about the other 2 CO2 absortion lines – 2.8 and 4.2 microns which equate to temperatures of 720 deg C and 470 deg C respectively. Irrelevent as a “greenhouse gas” as we have not (yet) reached Venus like temperatures you may say – until you realise those 2 absorption lines shield the Earth’s surface of both of those IR wavelengths emitting from the Sun (whose radiation is very broad and centred on around 0.5 microns) during the day.

    So CO2 has a cooling effect during the day.

  • Avatar

    John Morland

    |

    I continue to have doubts about the notion “You do not Radiate Energy from a cold source to a hot target… It breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics..” when applied to so calleds radiation forcing. The famous equation I=kxT^4 applies to net radiation pressure or intensity as a result of net temperature between two black body radiators.

    To clarify, a black body at a temperature say at 0 deg C (273 deg K)placed in space (at say 2.7 deg K) would radiate at higher radiatiative intensity than if it is placed in a freezer at -10 deg C (263 deg K). The effect of this is the black body will cool at a faster rate in space, plunging to a very low temperature in a short time on its way to 2.7 deg K equilibrium; whereas in the freezer it would slowly reduce its temperature to reach a 263 deg K equilibrium.

    So yes the statement at the top is correct, a cold body cannot heat a hot body. However, it can reduce the rate of cooling of the hot body depending on the temperature difference between it and the cold body.

    In the case of CO2 warming the planet, the climate alarmists wiil show you diagrams of red lines (representing infrared radiation) bouncing back to Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere but will never tell you the IR wavelength of those lines.

    Well let me inform you: it’s 15 (+/-2 at the very most)microns – this the main CO2 absortion line that turns alarmist into a lather.

    Now comes the crunch, under Wien’s Displacement Law (which unifies light with temperature) 15 micron is the peak wavelength of the emission curve of a black body at a temperature of 193 deg K; that’s right folks, its -80 deg C!

    Gosh, a lot of warming in that one, that is 1.5 deg C Colder than dry ice (frozen CO2)and is similiar to the lowest winter temperature at the Antartic station Vostock.

    As well, it must be considered this IR emission is relatively narrow band, not a broader band which a black body radiator at 195 deg K would radiate. By way of example – hold a glowing 100-watt incandescent bulb in your hand, it may give you a burn in a short time; then hold a glowing fluroscent 20-watt bulb, it will feel warm/mildly hot but won’t burn. Both bulbs emit similar amount of light but the incandescent has much wider band emission.

    So yes, CO2’s 15 micron absorption line will slightly slow down the rate of cooling at night, but once the 4th power (I=kT^4)is applied in the calculation the difference works out to very small amount.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk Solving Tornadoe

    |

    [quote name=”Brian Daed”]CO2 global warming is normal. The coastal flood plains confirm this. By the numbers, without it we would have full ice-age, which may give a clue as to the cause of the ice-ages.[/quote]Tell us what evidence you employed (if any) to come to this conclusion.

    Or is it your own special secret?

  • Avatar

    ioff101der

    |

    Give me a physicist with only one hand!

  • Avatar

    Brian Daed

    |

    First of all, the thermal energy of the earth representing and underlying exit radiation comes from the natural decay of Thorium and Uranium decay. Within the Earth the decay is allowed to go to completion much as within the Sun Hydrogen fusion is allowed to go to completion. If the Sun suddenly failed, the Earth would drop to a temperature of around -150 F on the surface, but much warmer below.

    The 60 odd year cycle has a very simple expanation. The Earth has an eliptical orbit. It has a variance of about +/- 1,000,000 miles. The planets Jupiter and Saturn “dance” with the Sun changing the center of gravity by +/- 500,000 miles. Aproximately every 60 years they align with the Sun near a resolved point of origin. This effects the temperature of the Earth relative to the particular season. In 60 years 3 such alignments will occur, one every 20 years. They will be spreadout 120 deg. apart. This is when the 500,000 mile shift reaches maximum. That must be commpared to the eliptical distance at the time.

    CO2 global warming is normal. The coastal flood plains confirm this. By the numbers, without it we would have full ice-age, which may give a clue as to the cause of the ice-ages.

    The ice-cores are misconstrued. The cells cannot hold the pressure for that long. They can only show trends. A consideration of the two ice-cores suggests that an ice-age comes very suddenly, then the Earth slowly warms, and then an unknown event occurs like clockwork to cause a sudden cooling. Before that happens the Antarctic Ice will partially melt and the Greenland Ice will melt completely. This relation then causes the Antarctic Ice to display a shorter time than what actually elapsed. The only thing that could trigger such a climate change is a catastophic Carrington Event. I have some ideas on that, but it is a mathematical study of speculative astronomy.

    The real issue of “global warming” is the loss of national investments. When New Orleans was bult it was right at sea level. A Danish sailer would have wondered about that, since Denmark has long kept records of sea-level. Most of the city is now below sea-level. In New Orleans “Uptown” and “Downtown” have a very specific meaning. In most places towns have slowly migrated away from the rising waters, but in New Orleans that is not possible. Places like New Orleans are a loss with respect to financial investments. That is the real issue

  • Avatar

    Quantummist

    |

    @Visiting physicist ..oh and You do not Radiate Energy from a cold source to a hot target… It breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics..

  • Avatar

    Quantummist

    |

    @Visiting physicist Such cold snap Could Not have preserved those dead animals and the temperate foods .. As a short duration cold snap would have left a dead carcass to rot in the warm days that followed.. What Ever froze the mega fauna (Not just a few) happened fast and remained cold for 10’s of 1000’s of years.. The well frozen and preserved bodies tell us so… We have dated them and during the time they were walking around eating grass and plants we are also told that Ice was a mile thick down to the 40deg north lat in the US.. So that would mean if the Ice was due to a Global Ice Age then that same ice should be that far south in Siberia also.. But At that time we find Human, Animal and Plants remains as far north as 60deg north lat in Siberia and Europe.. This indicates that the last Ice Age had it’s Pole position over Northern Wisconsin…

    For this reason Einstein supported that theory o crustal shift instead of a actual global temp change as outlined by Hapgood in his theory.. And the Evidence seem to support Crustal Shift instead of Global climate change..

    http://www.skrause.org/writing/papers/hapgood_and_ecd.shtml

    I am fully aware we are in the short duration inner glacial period and are due to the shift back to the long duration glacial period.. The short warm periods last from 15k to 30k years and the cold glacial periods last 50k to 100k years… But those are based on Ice Core in Antarctica and would be the same if the earth shifted versus global change..

  • Avatar

    Visiting physicist

    |

    I would suggest that sudden changes in temperature such as happened in North America this week, could easily have killed off a few animals. The records stands that it did take hundreds of years for the whole planet to cool between the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. And, by the way, I suggest you look up the difference between “ice age” and “glacial period” because we are still in an ice age, though we are not in a glacial period within that ice age.

    Valid physics tells us carbon dioxide cannot warm the planet because back radiation cannot transfer energy to the warmer surface. See the PSI paper ‘Radiated Energy.”

  • Avatar

    Quantummist

    |

    @Visiting physicist while that might be the case it does not explain the mega fauna found with temperate food still in their bellies undigested as the froze intact and in place that have been located in Siberia … This is a good piece of evidence that such a temp drop could happen so quickly that the animal population does not have time to even migrate from the onset of a cooling cycle.. It also brings into question the whole Ice Age construct as this indicated that when the mega fauna roamed northern Siberia during the Ice Age period it had Temperate plants growing when the dogma calls for ice sheets … If the Story is correct then during the last ice age the Poles would have extended their ice sheets equally around their whole circumference due to a Global Cooling .. Yet we find at the time North America’s northern regions were under a mile thick layer of ice the Northern parts of Europe has human’s, animals and plants better suited for a temperate climate… At the same Latitudes as the Mile Thick Ice shelf over North America…

  • Avatar

    Visiting physicist

    |

    I do join with those who consider there will be a Little Ice Age sometime in the future. But it took about 500 years for the world to cool off between the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. Yes, sunspot activity is decreasing, but there are still short term rises therein http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

    Yes the 60 to 65 year cycle is in the middle of a downturn and the world is cooling very slightly since 1998. The fact that the cooling is slight means the underlying 1,000 year cycle is still rising at about 0.5C per century for perhaps just another 100 years before 500 years of cooling. But the cooling won’t be more than 2 degrees over those centuries. The world will cope – even though carbon dioxide cools it by about a tenth of a degree.

  • Avatar

    Visiting physicist

    |

    Earth’s internal thermal energy also comes mostly from the Sun, having accumulated over the life of the planet. How else do you imagine the centre of the Moon got so hot? Yes, heat can be a transfer of energy up the equilibrium temperature gradient, restoring disturbed thermodynamic equilibrium. How else could the required energy get down to the core of Uranus and keep the surface thereof at thousands of degrees? Watch for the book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” to be available within 3 weeks.

  • Avatar

    CarbonFooledYa

    |

    [quote]..Earth’s oceans have been cooling for 10 years and the atmosphere for seven years..[/quote]This ties in with lowered sea level rise last 10 years ([url=http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/new-paper-finds-sea-level-rise-has.html]link[/url]).
    [quote]..then we may also see some of the worst-ever earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.. The sun regulates more than we have been told..[/quote]After billions of years, Earth’s internal heat can’t be due to planetary contraction, or nuclear decay. I read ([url=http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070606094357AAdaFQ5]here[/url]) magma heat is influenced by Earth’s magnetic field, which may in turn be influenced by the solar wind and Sun-Earth electrical connection. Add the influence of the heliosphere on cloud cover, and it’s a bigger picture of the Sun’s real influence on earth.

  • Avatar

    DAVID SPURGEON

    |

    He has just given you the evidence, Pat Obar – sheesh!!

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    John L. Casey,

    Do you have “any” data to back up your claims?

    Your “Space and Science Research Corp.” and You Have been described on MediaMatters forum as the same as the Warmists but with the opposite story.

Comments are closed