The Coming of an Ice Age

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/tornado-drought-ends-with-a-deadly-texas-outbreak-15994

Varying reports, some of more than a hundred tornadoes, and definitely incidents in Texas and Iowa sound he alarm for disaster preparedness and review of some of the useful information on this site.

Since another mass thread on here, the Coming of an Ice Age is still possible, we are going to see shifts between icy subzero weather (which is still happening in some ares) to unstable harsh weather across the plains and the deep south.

These are not new weather patterns, yet the idea is to monitor their intensity versus the last ten years and continue to prep - with droughts, and a second winter is hitting part of the United States.

http://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/winter-storm-live-updates-snow-ice-latest-20131106

After a taste of spring to end this past week, the Rockies and Midwest are flipping to a wintry feel as colder temperatures dive south the next couple of days. In fact, there will be just enough cold air in place to result in wet snow accumulations in parts of these regions.

Below are the forecast summaries for the regions affected by this wintry weather. The maps show where snow is falling right now, and our latest snowfall forecast.

Snow

• On Monday, a stripe of light accumulating snow will extend along the I-35 corridor from far northern Oklahoma to the Kansas City metro area, shifting east during the day.
• A second area of snow Monday will pull through parts of northeast Wisconsin and the U.P. of Michigan early in the day.
• Monday evening into Tuesday, rain may change to wet snow before ending from the mid-Mississippi Valley into the in the eastern Great Lakes, Upper Ohio Valley and centra

comment: Winter is not over yet.

A large part of Western Europe did not have a real winter this winter-time. For the Netherlands April was the fifth mont in a row that will end up in the top ten of warmest months. Since december 2013 all months are 2 or 3 degrees celsius warmer than average. I was expecting a summermonth with a maximum of 40 celsius for our country, the way things develop we might see that recordtemperature this summer (with drought, bushfires, increased mortality etc). I do not know what would be better, temperatures going down-a mini ice-age or "moving into the (sub)tropics ?

No scarcasam, for once a serious statement in spite of my previous levity.

Between the dates 126,000 to 119,000 years ago the polar regions of the earth, in particular the north pole were two degrees warmer than they are now and we were having a warm period, as we are now. Then, without fear of repeating myself, as is happening now, the weather went haywire for a short period of time.  Then it slapped us with an ice age!  This put several thousand feet (for the benefit of those educated later than me up to 3 kilometers) of ice over everything north of northern Germany, the river Thames in England, most of Canada and the US and most of Asia. 

This turned us all into short, stocky caribou hunters and triggered, aparently, the development of  the modern type of brain, more suited for developing technology.  We lived in small tribes and there weren't many of us.

This lasted for 40,000+ years.  Then there was another short warm period when the ice retreated, followed by another ice age.  This was the one most people think of as "The Ice Age" it was in fact one of many.

About 13,000 years ago the whole lot started to retreat again and some big people with advanced stone weapons nipped across and took over the Americas and became Native Americans.

The rest of us ran around all over Asia, Africa and Europe forming tribes then nations and eventually doing what we do best (having wars with each other) and claiming colonies in the New World (Australasia and the Americas again).

Now the strange thing is, different times are given for each of the ice ages because ice cores are taken from different points in the polar regions.  But one thing stands out.  It appears that  over the last couple of milion years we have had long periods of ice cover, dented periodically by around (and it's fairly regular) 13,000 years of warming.  Then the weather goes crazy for a short while followed by an ice age, and the cycle repeats.

Unfortunately no one has yet really found the cause of this cycle.  There are enough theories and enough different versions of what I have just written for every paleontologist, climatologist, anthropologist, and any other 'ologist you can think of, to have his or her take on it.  If they are not retired old men, they will roughly toe the line agreed by the various  scientific institutes (that is how you keep your grants!). 

Fortunately, there are enough curious and intelligent people, in forums like this one, that are capable of thinking outside the box and ensuring the survival of the human race - along with their own.  It has been warm for about 13,000 years now.  The weather is going crazy too.

   

Despite a lot of denial on many parts of this we still are facing severe climate changes which may bring on a worsening of the weather in the current Ice Age.  I do receive a lot of dismal reports on extremely bitter cold which for some has been relentless and pounding storms and tornadoes.

U.S. .gov has picked up the banner and despite any real effective plan to do much, is admitting we are in the middle of some type of seriousl climate change.  Some areas are still fighting snow and weather which continues to set records.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/06/administration-issues-dire-climate-change-warnings-amid-regulatory-push/

The Obama administration fueled its push for energy regulations with a massive new report Tuesday linking climate change to extreme weather across the country and warning of more "climate disruption" if the nation doesn't change its ways. 

The National Climate Assessment, four years in the making, gave a region-by-region breakdown of how climate change is impacting the United States -- in the form of droughts, heat waves and increasingly intense hurricanes, according to the report. 

"Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present," the 840-page report states. "Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington state and maple syrup producers in Vermont are all observing climate-related changes that are outside of recent experience."

comment: One can hope this is not simply politicial posturing but a final admission there are issues.  What can be done about probable damage to the ozone layer and the continued pouring of chemical and HAARP?

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/geoengineering-is-destroying-the-ozone-layer/

Restating the obvious - glaciers continue to melt in some cases at rates which over the last 20 years are much greater than usual. The dilution of the stream which helps keep us warm will result in dropping temperatures and the start of perhaps a brief but nasty hundred years which could turn the norhern United States and much of northern Europe and even more so already cold areas around the world into places very difficult to live in.

Medclinician

Strangest weather I've ever seen. I burned twice as much wood as normal last winter and burned it much farther into the spring. It's almost August and we have not hit 100 degrees yet. Been good for the garden though!

It's been really humid in Southern CA these past two weeks. I was melting at Comic-Con yesterday. The high humidity also gave me an earache/ possible infection. :/

FluMom wrote: Then I see that the sun is going "silent" and we are going to get colder due to this.

I always have to laugh whenever people say, "It's because of us humans that it's getting warmer/colder/more humid/etc"

Take a look at the big ball of fusion eight light minutes away. What's it doing?

We have an impact, but it is far less than we give ourselves credit for, and that big ball of fusing hydrogen? It has far more impact than we will ever give it credit for. I suppose that we, as a race, have delusions of grandeur, and it's cute.

But we still, to this day, can not predict the weather more than a few days out with any semblance of accuracy. Maybe someone should let Al "The center of the Earth is several million degrees" Gore and his hockey schticks in on that nasty little secret.

Ditto

Nope

Speaking of Algore, was I just dreaming or did I really read recently that he made an almost secret deal with the Chinese for $100,000,000 to have our Edison incandescent bulbs banned and replaced with the Chinese pigtail? Don't mean to start another argument but really, when you think about it, we were warming up nicely with those bulbs and now that they're mostly gone (got my stash), all I've been hearing about is that now the globe is cooling. Maybe it's all just in the bulbs? Lets ask Chuck.

jacksdad wrote: Incandescent bulbs are seriously old school and definitely needed to go - a glowing metal filament dangling in a glass bulb with a 90-10 heat to light ratio is not the kind of technology we need to be fighting to keep in the 21st century. I think I have some floppy discs in the garage that would look great next to your stash of bulbs, though... And it was actually George Bush that signed the legislation to phase them out back in 2007. A Republican administration killed your light bulb, dude. Sorry. "...all I've been hearing about is that now the globe is cooling...". That's all you're hearing?

You got me. Kind of. The pigtails are certainly substantially more efficient. Though you practically have to call the EPA if you ever break one. And the color they put off is nauseating. But ultimately they are a much better energy saving choice. Bush signed the bill, granted. But it was a Democrat bill with only four in opposition -including its sponser- while most Repubs opposed it. It was veto proof. Not that Bush would of vetoed it. I don't know. And, as most of us know, GE among other major left supporters pushed the legislation to better profit off the substantially more expensive pigtail. But I have no argument about the energy saving part and I'm only being humerous in this lightbulb thing anyway. I just thought it was funny and ironic that the global warming debate is now (seemingly) turning to a global cooling debate in the midst of the hot/cold lightbulb switch. And no, duh, that's not "all I've been hearing about." That's just kind of a figure of speach.

I have a very large stash of incandescent light bulbs and am very glad that I do. We also use fluorescents in the basement, garage, and some timers in the main floor. But, I will never ever give up my 3-way bulbs in my reading lamps. I have over 30 of them!

If everyone is so concerned about the heat generated by incandescent light bulbs and wasted energy, then we should go back to the blue laws and close all businesses on Sunday. This would save all sorts of energy from reduced lighting, heating, and cooling!

If you live in a large city like I do, haven't you ever wondered why these huge office buildings are burning lights on every single floor of tall buildings until after midnight? They simply can't be cleaning all those floors at once until the wee hours of the morning. START THERE WITH YOUR ENERGY SAVINGS AND LEAVE ME AND MY INCADESCENT BULBS ALONE!

jacksdad wrote: Not a huge fan of energy efficient bulbs other than the substantial savings, but they finally got us away from some seriously outdated technology in a meaningful way. They're not bad when they eventually reach full brightness (just about the time I'm leaving the house typically) but LEDs are really making inroads. I hear you on the color thing - it can make a difference. Full spectrum bulbs can be beneficial in places where extended winters, and short or non existent days can cause seasonally effected disorder. Incidentally, LEDs can be tailored to any spectrum and last an ungodly long time. How did we get on to this anyway...? And of course the Republicans opposed a Democratic bill. It's the way it works. One party likes it but the other hates it - even when they thought of it first. Just politics as usual.

You know, environmental savings...

Except for all that delicious mercury.

What did we get rid of incandescent bulbs again?

Hey, nuttin' to do with me, Elver - not a member of the legislature last I looked. Just saying that as a society hungry for energy, I think we can do better with the technology available.
I'm absolutely on the same page as you with respect to large office buildings, but they typically use flourescent strip lighting, not incandescents. That said, it certainly wouldn't hurt to teach the staff to turn them off when they leave at night. Personally, I think it's more often a deliberate move to advertise a business's presence, especially when many high rise office buildings typically have a corporate logo emblazoned on them.
As for Blue laws being a fix for anything - I'll pass. Sunday's the day when I get most of my stuff done, and I'd be screwed if stores were closed for business. I'm sure my wife wouldn't appreciate me getting under her feet either.
I just found a whole bunch of incandescent flashlights in the garage and tossed every last one of them. Lugging around a heavy flashlight filled with expensive C and D cells that I have to switch out after a weekend of camping is a great way to show how horribly inefficient incandescents really are. I use LEDs exclusively now, and I have incredibly bright flashlights that weigh ounces and will run on three AAAs even if I leave them on for days. Don't get me wrong - I'm all about old school where it matters, but not technology that was invented when a horse and carriage was still the most common thing on the road. My old Dodge has six dual filament bulbs in the tail lights and they were so dim during the day that people would tell me they weren't working, and having them all running through one circuit would melt the plastic fuse block at long stoplights. LEDs are available for auto applications now and fixed all my problems in one fell swoop, and they're not even particularly spendy these days given the 50000+ hour expected lifespan.

TG - I had no idea you were so environmentally friendly. We'll make a tree hugger out of you yet

Seriously though, with your background in technology you're not really going to defend 19th century incandescent technology just for the sake of argument, are you? You're telling me that in your line of work you'd steadfastly continue to use a Lincoln era antique that was 5-10% efficient and pretty much guaranteed to crap out at a thousand hours, and refuse to upgrade to a modern high tech equivalent on principle? Probably not, I'm guessing. But then again, this is one of those arguments that became politicized a while ago, and no longer bears any relation to real world issues. And like I said, I'm no fan of the current crop of energy efficient bulbs. Says it right there in the quote.

Good to have you back, BTW

Oh yous guys! Funny funny. But uniquely true! Remember Big Boot's hard hat? "If you don't grow it, you have to mine it." How profound! I have a Smith And Wesson flashlight. One double A. The LED is so bright it'll spotlight a low cloud. It'll also burn my hand it is so powerful. I love it. Except it kills the battery in one hour flat. But I also have the other kinds of LED flash lights that are also bright and will stay on for days or more. So I can't knock modern bulb technology. It all has its pros and cons. Old bulbs use way more power up from power plants and that creates more pollution. But the nicely warm and dimable incandescents don't give me headaches and I am therefore more productive. Hybrids use less fuel but cost much more to buy meaning one has to work harder, longer, drive more, use more energy to produce work etc just to afford them, never mind that they're ugly as d***! It all ballences back out I think. Except for Gore. He made out like a Mexican bandit durring the goldrush.

onefluover wrote: ...never mind that they're ugly as d***!

I know - what's up with that? Unless you drop enough coin on a Tesla or Fisker, that is.