Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

We are headed for an ice age according to NASA

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by smee, Jan 9, 2008.

  1. Feast your eyes on this pro pilot this should warm your cockles


    Changes in the Sun's Surface to Bring Next Climate Change
    January 2, 2008
    Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando,
    Florida announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of
    NASA solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in
    the sun's surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and
    has concluded they will bring about the next climate change to one of
    a long lasting cold era.
    Today, Director of the SSRC, John Casey has reaffirmed earlier
    research he led that independently discovered the sun's changes are
    the result of a family of cycles that bring about climate shifts from
    cold climate to warm and back again.
    "We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are
    historic and important changes taking place on the sun's surface. This
    will have only one outcome - a new climate change is coming that will
    bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet. This is not
    however a unique event for the planet although it is critically
    important news to this and the next generations. It is but the normal
    sequence of alternating climate changes that has been going on for
    thousands of years. Further according to our research, this series of
    solar cycles are so predictable that they can be used to roughly
    forecast the next series of climate changes many decades in advance. I
    have verified the accuracy of these cycles' behavior over the last
    1,100 years relative to temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%."
    As to what these changes are Casey says, "The sun's surface flows have
    slowed dramatically as NASA has indicated. This process of surface
    movement, what NASA calls the "conveyor belt" essentially sweeps up
    old sunspots and deposits new ones. NASA's studies have found that
    when the surface movement slows down, sunspot counts drop
    significantly. All records of sunspot counts and other proxies of
    solar activity going back 6,000 years clearly validates our own
    findings that when we have sunspot counts lower then 50 it means only
    one thing - an intense cold climate, globally. NASA says the solar
    cycle 25, the one after the next that starts this spring will be at 50
    or lower. The general opinion of the SSRC scientists is that it could
    begin even sooner within 3 years with the next solar cycle 24. What we
    are saying today is that my own research and that of the other
    scientists at the SSRC verifies that NASA is right about one thing - a
    solar cycle of 50 or lower is headed our way. With this next solar
    minimum predicted by NASA, what I call a "solar hibernation," the SSRC
    forecasts a much colder Earth just as it has transpired before for
    thousands of years. If NASA is the more accurate on the schedule, then
    we may see even warmer temperatures before the bottom falls out. If
    the SSRC and other scientists around the world are correct then we
    have only a few years to prepare before 20-30 years of lasting and
    possibly dangerous cold arrive."
    When asked about what this will mean to the average person on the
    street, Casey was firm. "The last time this particular cycle
    regenerated was over 200 years ago. I call it the "Bi-Centennial
    Cycle" solar cycle. It took place between 1793 and 1830, the so-called
    Dalton Minimum, a period of extreme cold that resulted in what
    historian John D. Post called the 'last great subsistence crisis.'
    With that cold came massive crops losses, food riots, famine and
    disease. I believe this next climate change will be much stronger and
    has the potential to once more cause widespread crop losses globally
    with the resultant ill effects. The key difference for this next Bi-
    Centennial Cycle's impact versus the last is that we will have over 8
    billion mouths to feed in the next coldest years where as we had only
    1 billion the last time. Among other effects like social and economic
    disruption, we are facing the real prospect of the 'perfect storm of
    global food shortages' in the next climate change. In answer to the
    question, everyone on the street will be affected."
    Given the importance of the next climate change Casey was asked
    whether the government has been notified. "Yes, as soon as my research
    revealed these solar cycles and the prediction of the coming cold era
    with the next climate change, I notified all the key offices in the
    Bush administration including both parties in the Senate and House
    science committees as well as most of the nation's media outlets.
    Unfortunately, because of the intensity of coverage of the UN IPCC and
    man made global warming during 2007, the full story about climate
    change is very slow in getting told. These changes in the sun have
    begun. They are unstoppable. With the word finally starting to get out
    about the next climate change, hopefully we will have time to prepare.
    Right now, the newly organized SSRC is the leading independent
    research center in the US and possibly worldwide, that is focused on
    the next climate change. Some of the world's brightest scientists,
    also experts in solar physics and the next climate change have joined
    with me. In the meantime we will do our best to spread the word along
    with NASA and others who can see what is about to take place for the
    Earth's climate. Soon, I believe this will be recognized as the most
    important climate story of this century."
    More information on the Space and Science Research Center is available
    at: [url]www.spaceandscience.net[/url]
  2. When I studied the science subjects at Uni back in the day (91+), this is pretty much the conclusions we all came to from various stuff we had records of (Timelines and temperature recordings available) that an ice age was "due some time". It was just as the term "Global Warming" was coming in that I recall and from what we saw, there was gonna be a "little" bit of overall warming and then either a big drop in temp and/or iceage type of event.

    Let's see how things pan out, in my view we have f*ck all say in world wide stuff. Some recent data has shown something like 40% (or was it 60%?) of so the good ol' global warming gases came from methane (i.e cow + sheep poop) and as an overall, humans weren't as much to "blame" as publically stated.

    But as we know, a group is more likely to get funding when using global warming as opposed to global cooling as the topic of their research in the past few years :eek:
  3. WOW!!! Green writing!!!! Thats cool!!
  4. Yeah, I've heard the arguments against global warming. They talk about the masses of carbon dioxide generated by plant matter in the time before humans, far more than todays man made emissions.

    What they fail to mention is that almost all of those emissions were generated by decaying matter on the floor of forests and that the emissions were reabsorbed and regulated by those same forests.

    Plus, I am sure the nature of our C02 emissions are quite different from natural emissions. Our emissions carry toxic impurities and dust particles and are ejected high into the atmosphere.

    Whichever way they want to look at it, humans are devastating our planet in many many many areas. This solar activity may combine with natural and manmade conditions to bring about a cold period or even an iceage.

    The thing is, if we weren't at almost seven billion and adding so much of our own waste into the equation, it might have been that this sunspot cycle would not induce as strong a reaction from the planet's environmental systems, and the cold might have been diverted for longer.

    And, to say that the scientific community is bending the truth or concocting a global conspiracy is just phuckn hilarious. What an utter load of bollocks.

    One thing is for sure. Change, on a large enough scale to upset many many millions of people, is coming. It won't be us that suffers so much, just the rest of humanity for as long as humans have left on this planet. Humans don't have a manifest destiny, but everyone thinks we do.

    But hey, what do I care. I'm gonna be dead in fourty years or so. In the mean time, I'm just gonna ride my motorcycle :)
  5. Why would you say that?

    For the record i am not ignorant of the damage humans are doing to the environment and i do believe that it is changing the globe's temperature.

    But why would you totally discount the conspiracy? Politicians bend the truth all the time for their own agendas, why wouldn't scientists?
  6. Jesus, first it was "Global Warming" then made a little more vague with "Climate Change" and now it's an "Ice Age".

    Make up your bloody minds, you bored, over-educated self indulgent wankers. Stick with writing ghost stories or apocolyptic movie scripts, they scan much better.
  7. global warming + Ice Age = no change

    thats my maths anyway :LOL:


  8. o_0 natural CO2 is different to human CO2???

    it is true though, volcanic clouds don't go very high into the atmosphere, don't have dust, and also don't carry toxins like Hcl, S02, HF, H2SO4....

    actually it was ice age first. :p
    the impending iceage was the big worry of the 70s. and this isn't predicting an iceage, just an extreme cold period of 30 years or so
  9. .. so get your riding done NOW, because when THAT'S over, all the land is going to be flooded with rising oceans, and the price of Jet-Skis is going to go through the roof!!! :LOL:.
  10. As far as I can see the whole global warming debate seems to be centred on ourselves, rather than on the planet itself. Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't CO2 levels been ten times higher at periods than today, and life seems to keep going. Dinosaurs were all wiped out but the planet still kept going. I spose the point I'm getting at is that its humans that are more likely to die than the planet itself, maybe that's the reason this subject is so emotive?
  11. I think you are wrong about the 10 times greater CO2 levels - as fair as I know we're in record territory, at least since there has been life on the planet at all.

    You're generally right that the 'planet' as a whole isn't threatened - there will still be some form of life. We would take millions of other species with us, of course, but we're already doing that.

    But I do kinda like the idea of living out my life, and having my kids and grandkids live out theirs. You can take a long view and suggest that if we're all killed off like the dinosaurs there may well be a highly enlightened roach civilisation in another 65 million years, but it's not much consolation to us.

    Incidentally, the report is not from NASA, it's from a little 'independent thinktank' type outfit. NASA has endorsed some of their findings, but attribution is fairly important.
  12. I don't think this view is in any kind of jeopardy. Any changes that the ‘alarmists’ are suggesting are way over emphasised.

    The content of the OP is not new nor earth shattering. It is however still only a theory.
    The facts are very much more boring.

    We as a civilisation are indeed polluting our environment in several ways. However the system as a whole (the planet) has extremely robust buffering mechanisms that would take quite some tipping (and time of course) to take effect.

    Ostensibly this means that what you are told (in the propaganda) as taking decades, is more likely to take place over centuries.

    I would personally be more alarmed at the population of the planet exceeding the food production and storage capacities over the next 50 years.

    We are more likely to suffer a collapse of civilisation through one of our core crops (wheat, rice, barley etc.) failing than anything to do with climate change over the next 2-300 years.

    I would also be much more afraid of global cooling than warming!
  13. Bugger me! We'd all better give up our cars and bikes RIGHT NOW to stop this :wink:

    As far as I know, weather cycles are not really yearly, they can go for thousands of years so we cannot really predict things long term very well yet. Either way, i'd rather a cooler day that 41!!!

    There are far too many people on the planet anyway. I think it is not sustainable, especially at the rate we are consuming resources. 3 or 4 billion might be alright but 8! We do not even have enough water in this country and people are being paid money to have babies and the immigration doors are wide open. I think we should start tending our own back yard before we worry about someone elses.
  14. +1 Hubie
  15. Yeah well that's my point! Lets call it for what is really is, its not about saving the planet, its' about saving ourselves.
  16. hmmmm...

    maybe look at this

    you wanna be on a plane near a volcanic cloud..??? :twisted:
  17. *cough*might wanna switch on your sarcasm detector*cough*
  18. At least Pro Pilot is consistent at dismissing things just because it's a theory! Apart from the outright rejected IPCC propaganda, he dismisses all manner of GW things because it's theory... and he has just dismissed the NASA cooling period as well, just because it's theory... gotta hand it to him for consistency! :LOL:

    The OP quote is the most clear support of a proposed climate outcome that I've seen - no weasel words, no balance of probabilities, no couching terms in political speak... the NASA dude is convinced. Should we spend a bunch of dollars and move to the planet next closer to the sun for the 30yrs?? Or start genetically engineering plants to survive cold climates?? Or what???

    I think Smitty is onto something though... let's ride more and get the greenhouse effect really going... :-k
  19. I only have a problem with theory being evolved via deification into a religious mantra. I’m concerned that quite a few pillars of science could become perverted (an not in that way! :p ) by the myopic and incestual politics that drives academic institutions and departments.

    I have not rejected theory, just rejected the summary of them and quoted outcomes.

    I think the IPCC started out with good intention and operating principals. But the 'fun police' I feel have invaded their ranks to ensure the agenda.

    The guys in the OP have a good solid theory. What NASA has agreed on is the slowing of a mechanism (they call the ‘conveyor belt’ and is still a theory to explain behaviour). What that means in the short term (next few decades is going to be interesting). Needless to say, if the suns ability to emanate high energy particles is reduced it will coincide with a reduction in earth’s temp (but over quite a long period of time).