Could be bad news for us in the north east.

This will affect Ireland, the UK, Scandinavia and other parts of northern Europe mostly...not us in the Northeast.

When the Big Chill hits, everybody is welcome to migrate to my place in the Great Desert Southwest. We'll have a big session and write a bunch of disaster songs. They'll be big hits, for sure. Assuming we still have power. . .

Kim Stanley Robinson wrote a very interesting series of three books about exactly this scenario. The first is called Forty Signs of Rain. Of course it's a work of fiction only discussing what could possibly happen and then crafting an engaging story around it, but it is kind of scary to consider the potential worst-case outcome.

Well, we just had the warmest march in 136 years according to NOAA.

So what happened 136 years ago? did humans force a mini ice age with all their wood and coal burning, and sailing ships disturbing the ocean currents... and firing off muskets and all that gunpowder causing an imbalance in CO2 levels leading to increased particular in the air causing the sun to be blocked more and thus global cooling???

Damn our ancestors with their fancy coal, wood and gunpowder burning!

Modern temperature measurements need to be looked at closely. Most older measurements were done in rural areas or in less developed cities. Today we take those measurements at 'hot zones' in urban areas that are reflective asphalt heaters. Twenty miles out of those zones the air is cooler.

In other news, yes, the climate is always changing.

Snowing briefly today here in southwestern Connecticut, temps supposed to be close to freezing tonight.

Most of pro-AGW folks do a lot of cherry picking when it comes to "proof", I've found.  They'll talk of retreating glaciers in the northern hemisphere, but avoid talking about the 3% global ice surplus in the southern hemisphere, mainly around Antarctica.  They'll talk about warming in anarctica, but avoid talking about the warm spots being centered around geothermal venting under the ice and the small amount of thermometers on the continent which skew the average wildly.  They'll say that we'll all starve to death, but avoid talking about the fact that NASA's aqua satellite has found the globe to be the greenest it's been in quite some time and that the average food bounty has steadily risen with temperature (+0.8F in 200 years..) because you know, water and CO2 are plant food..

Anyway, it's quite obvious in a Danish ice core study that CO2 actually lags temperature in the long term.  In layman's terms, temperature increases cause the CO2 to rise, not the other way around.  The ocean and rain forest are 90%+ of the source of all CO2 in the atmosphere (humans are less than 1%) and the warmer the water, the more microbes flourish and expire CO2.  The warmer the atmosphere, the more rain, the more growth in the rain forests and the more leaf litter decays on the rainforest floors with more microbes expiring CO2.

wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/

What we should fear is something acutely cataclysmic like an asteroid or this:

wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/23/another-thing-more-worrisome-than-global-warming-yellowstone-supervolcano-has-more-magma-than-once-thought/


I think the whole climate change agenda thing is based on humanity collectively thinking that humanity is the most important thing on the planet.  Egos are powerful things, even if they are misleading.  Add in some circular logic and you have a recipe for disaster.

We think that we and everything we do is so important that the earth can't possibly endure us being here, and then we think we're so important that the earth needs our help to endure.

Hm.
Mankind changed the planet more than anything in a very short amount of time, in relation to it's age.
Especially in the last 150 yrs. with extreme amounts of unnaturally spent energy from coal an oil with no end in sight...
IMO it is naive to think this would not have quite huge consequences that could easily erase mankind with it's limited ability to adapt to new environmental situations.
May it be new viral epidemias, change of ecological systems, climate change or a mixture of everything.
Nobody can really tell how long it takes, but it's unlikely mankind will stay forever on this planet the way it changes it's own environment now...
Just 3% of all climate scientists do not agree that global warming is happening.
This IS a very, very clear consensus.
I take it as a fact. As do most people i know. Nearly all.
I know the perception of these problems is a bit different in the U.S. as it is in europe, with a tendency to de-emphasize it. Which is understandable for political reasons if you read the international energy statistics concerning usage of primal energy sources....
Please take this as a personal opinion without any insult intended.

Around here, we have harder storms each year, more unpredictable hard weather changes, warmer winters, shifted seasons. Each year. Nobody in my small hometown here would came to the idea to deny global warming is happening and has quite dramatical effects, no matter if i ask academically trained friends or the taxi driver...btw. i live directly at the danish border.
Everyone finds it is pretty obvious around here.

Here's what actually happened 136 years ago:
Weather record keepers stopped measuring in rural or unpopulated areas and moved to urban centers which are well known as being 'heat bubbles' due to heat retention and quicker daytime heating due to the abundance of concrete, steel and asphalt. Immediately, this resulted in warming temps being recorded.

Temps have actually dropped, hurricane seasons have become less violent and 'stormy' in both magnitude and density of occurrence. There is more 'new' ice being formed in the polar circles than in the past 20 years and 2014 was one of the coldest years on record in both the Northern and southern hemispheres from January til July. There were a few exceptions, such as the Australian continent and nearby tropic zone but overall very few others.

Climate change is constant. It always has been. It is not changing faster despite erroneous models by the scientists being paid to report that it is. Often former 'ice age' and 'global warming' alarmists are quick to point that "97% of climate scientists agree with mad-made climate change". But what they don't tell you is who is paying them and what they must say or 'prove' to get paid.

Climate change is natural and often violent, and it is funny that man in his infinite arrogance believes he is capable of changing the Earth. I like what George Carlin said, that humans are like fleas on the earth and the planet could just shake us off.

Will this mini ice-age we've been experiencing since ~1000AD end? Probably. All others have. It's not natural for there to be permanent ice caps on a planet this size with this much solar radiation to maintain them.

Are sea levels rising? NO. Look at the news about the north islands of Japan rising 50 feet overnight in recent news. Doesn't fit well with climate alarmist's theories so it doesn't make their news. The earth expands by more than 360,000 lbs per day. EACH DAY. The Earth is expanding... so where is all the water coming from to keep the sea levels constant? Is it melting polar ice caps? There isn't actually enough water there to keep up. Is there an 'under the ocean' ocean. Possibly. Scientists are 'hypothesizing' such... i.e. speculating. I.E. making up some junk that they'll later be paid to prove, just like the coming ice-age theories in the 1970s and theit global warming theories in the 90s.

Oh and for those who need a citation... I.E. Don't believe anyone else and too lazy to google anything that doesn't fit their own theories.
"Barker & Anders, 1968, based on isotopic abundance ratios in sea floor sediments that estimated 6.12 × 1010 g/year, with an upper limit of 1.48 × 1011 g/year, which turns out to nicely match Ceplecha's 1996 correction of his own 1992 results.
Using 6 × 1010 grams per year, I get about 164,000 kg per day (60,000,000/365) , or about 360,000 pounds per day. At the upper limit, a bit more than twice that."
You can copy and paste that into www.google.com or www.duckduckgo.com if you wish to find about a BILLION references to it.

I could keep going and going... but it would probably be a bit much for you all to read. Especially the majority of non-alarmists amongst us.

And sorry Johnkenn if I've taken up too much space, been too verbose or come off as antagonistic. It's just my normal allergic reaction to bullcrap.

Sure you will find alot of studies that try to de-amphasize the dramatical changes in climate. We could post hundreds of studies each and won't come to a consent.

I am pretty aware that the perception of this topic is pretty different in the U.S than in the rest of the world. And this is by no means condescendent.
This has political reasons, and most US citizens have the impression that the media overstress it, that there are several motives for that, that the UN tries to weaken the US or that the climate scientists are corrupted to make their claims or whatever other motives might be percieved.
To us non-US countries it looks like climate change awareness in the US is more of a matter of belief than a matter of knowledge. The "American Psychologist" has researched this phenomenon and found three main reasons for this, i.e. that climate change is a mostly invisible phenomenon, that it's perception is mostly influenced by societies values and cosmovision, and that most americans simply don't have any personal felt experience with the consequences of the climate change.
Really, i don't mean to be provoking or insulting anyone. This simply is how we are sometimes shocked or surprised from the outside, that only 2/3 of the US citizens belief in climate change and only half of them, that mankind has a serious influence on it.
We see it like that. Even the most serious and conservative media in germany and most other european countries are concerned about this somehow. Of course, countries that have to struggle with the consequences of the climate change more dramatically, like southern countries in the 3rd world mostly, for sure are even more concerned.
Because we all are aware, that global problems can only be resolved or probably only influenced on a global level...
There is not even a word like alarmism involved in any discussion about climate change and ecological consequences in our media.
No matter, how this sound to you, it is just a general description of what is consent around here, and it's pretty clear, that the US-american consent is something very different. So this is nothing personal against anyone. I hope you get the point....

Best regards,
Martin

Dude, you're totally getting copied and pasted the next time I get into a 'debate' with a 'climate alarmist'. OK?