Science Denier said:

---

Actually, global warming is better than global cooling.

---

Manhattan under some water would suck for the people that own the land. Manhattan under a mile thick sheet of ice would mean billions of dead people.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

eta: evidently the gulf current is collapsing and all of northwestern Europe is going to reglaciate. it will cascade from there.

---

I saw a documentary on the Dark Ages in Europe and the Gulf Stream being cut off in the North Atlantic and not reaching the western areas of European shoreline was that cause. When the pattern changed and the stream was restored, the Renaissance happened with moderate temperatures sunshine and food production boomed.

So there is some logic there. But any real proof the Gulf Stream is being changed that much?

---

I saw an advertisement for a restaurant that said: "Breakfast at anytime."

So I ordered French toast during the renaissance.

Burrus86 said:

---

Will global cooling help with my wife's hot flashes?

---

No, but opening the freezer section in the grocery store will.

Trust me.

VegasAg86 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Actually, global warming is better than global cooling.

---

Manhattan under some water would suck for the people that own the land. Manhattan under a mile thick sheet of ice would mean billions of dead people.

---

You already sold me...

There really are no new ideas. Wash, rinse, repeat.

ShinerAggie said:

---

Well, maybe a [Little] Ice Age:

Quote:

---

"During a GSM a reduction of solar irradiance is expected by about 3 W/m from the modern level that causes a decrease of the average terrestrial temperature by about 1.0C."

"In summary, it can be concluded that the modern grand solar minimum (2020-2053) predicted 10 years ago by Zharkova et al, 2015 has arrived and will progress as expected until the mid of century. There is the cold weather with huge frosts and snows recorded in January- February 2026 in the whole Northern hemisphere from the West to the East and from the North to the equator. The little ice age associated with the modern grand solar minimum is here…"

---

Still hope it does not happen because it would be devastating to mankind. On second thought, why aren't the gorebull warmunists rooting for this to happen?



https://notrickszone.com/2026/05/29/a-grand-solar-minimum-has-arrived-global-cooling-of-at-least-1c-is-expected-by-the-2030s-2040s/

---

This can't be true. I was told the sun doesn't matter to global warming and that only carbon emissions matters.

Imagine if this occurs and Houston has 60 degree summers. We're already full, man…..

Good. It's hot as two rats humping in a wool sock. Maybe (probably) I'm getting older and softer, but I spent the weekend outside most of the time. Working on the yard, trimming trees, laying sod. This heat sucks. Beat me up.

Can anyone recommend an informative, Gulf Streamer podcast?

They should've maybe waited a while before the recycled their 50 year old "the world is ending due to man made climate change" hoax.
How do they say it with a straight face? Literally 40 years of telling us the earth is warming due to man and the only way to stop it is to abandon capitalism and give trillions to government.

ts5641 said:

---

They should've maybe waited a while before the recycled their 50 year old "the world is ending due to man made climate change" hoax.
How do they say it with a straight face? Literally 40 years of telling us the earth is warming due to man and the only way to stop it is to abandon capitalism and give trillions to government.

---

This genuinely is different. They're actually blaming the sun and known solar cycles. Doesn't mean the predicted outcome happens but at least this is rooted in something we can prove happens.

For what it's worth, a few years ago I met a geology professor who studied core samples off the Carolina coast. He said that his research indicated there is a roughly 3,000 year climate cycle and we are at the peak temperature wise and there should be a gradual cooling period.
As many here have said: We were taught in the 60s and early 70s that we are due for another cooling/ glacier period

The Ex Officio Director said:

---

Send some ice age to Houston.

---

Im trying my hardest.

You have no idea how difficult it is to load balance the Hurricane Machine and reprogram the Global Warming Device to the Glacierization Doomslayer.

I need gigityfloops of power.

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

The Ex Officio Director said:

---

Send some ice age to Houston.

---

Im trying my hardest.

You have no idea how difficult it is to load balance the Hurricane Machine and reprogram the Global Warming Device to the Glacierization Doomslayer.

I need gigityfloops of power.

---

Then call on Scotty to give you more power.

So Houston summers will now only be 97* and humid? I'll allow it.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

we are back to the coming ice age stage.


eta: evidently the gulf current is collapsing and all of northwestern Europe is going to reglaciate. it will cascade from there.

---

That would be a disaster considering that were are already in one ice age.

I wonder what happens when one ice age piles on top of another.

Going "green" and trying to tame global warming was always going to end in disaster.

The Earth has shown a remarkable ability to stabilize and heal itself. It's almost like a higher power is involved.

But since DemLibs are godless cretins, they have no belief or regard for God and his wondrous ways.

There is a lot more scientific basis for this theory than the man made global warming / greenhouse gases theory.

We actually are in an ice age right now. It just happens to be an interglacial period, which typically lasts 10,000-20,000 years. the last glacial period ended about 11,700 years ago.

The good news? The changes happen slowly and we'll have plenty of time to take over Central America.

fc2112 said:

---

There is a lot more scientific basis for this theory than the man made global warming / greenhouse gases theory.

We actually are in an ice age right now. It just happens to be an interglacial period, which typically lasts 10,000-20,000 years. the last glacial period ended about 11,700 years ago.

The good news? The changes happen slowly and we'll have plenty of time to take over Central America.

---

Agree. There are fossil records, tree rings, ice cores and the like. Plus the geological record, with different strata created over vast amounts of time. I never took a geology class at A&M but did take a geography class (which was surprisingly harder than I expected) which included a lot of geologic formations from past glaciations and similar changes.

I trust that hard evidence over theories involving hair spray and aerosol deodorants. Yes, car exhaust and smog was bad during the 60s and 70s, particularly with temperature inversions caused by mountainous terrain around cities. But that was cleaned up fairly fast at the atmosphere healed itself. But that type of pollution, although it could have some affect on weather, didn't connect directly to climate change.

VegasAg86 said:

---

---

In Search Of?!

I suddenly recall being terrified my entire childhood after watching In Search Of the Amityville Horror and the scene of a creepy doll rocking in a rocking chair in the corner of a bedroom.

hockeyag said:

---

For what it's worth, a few years ago I met a geology professor who studied core samples off the Carolina coast. He said that his research indicated there is a roughly 3,000 year climate cycle and we are at the peak temperature wise and there should be a gradual cooling period.
As many here have said: We were taught in the 60s and early 70s that we are due for another cooling/ glacier period

---

About every ~200-300 or so years there are regional changes in the northern hemisphere.

From slightly before Christ to about 300 or so AD there was the Roman Warm Period where temps were significantly warmer across the entire European continent than they are today. When Hannibal crossed the Alps with his elephants it was in a much warmer and milder period than normal, which is one reason why he was able to make the crossing. It coincided with the peak of the Roman empire. Grapes were being grown in England of all places at that time.

Temps leveled out for a couple of hundred years. Then it started cooling off some and in about 500-ish AD there was the Late Antique Little Ice Age where temps dropped across the continent. This was kicked off by a series of volcanic eruptions that put enough ash in the atmosphere to cool things down. That lasted a few hundred years. Also known as the Dark Ages, Dark Age Cold Period and probably a few other names. 536 was known as "the year without a summer" because temps never returned to normal, didn't for a few years.

That brings us to the Medieval Warm Period, starting in 800-900 or so AD. The beginning of the Renaissance. Food was more plentiful and man had the opportunity to do something other than just survive. That lasted 200-300 years, then it leveled off again for a couple of hundred years after the warm period.

The Little Ice Age started in roughly the 1500's and lasted through the early 1800's. Valley Forge, etc. was as harsh as it was because the northern hemisphere was in a trough in terms of temperatures and it was cooler across the board at that time - harsher winters, milder summers. Then it started warming up again.

Lo and behold, we are towards the end of that somewhat predictable 200 year cycle.

We are also towards the peak of the 11 year solar cycle, which has been in a solar maximum and should be trending towards a solar minimum. It's why we have been able to see aurora's as far south as Texas multiple times in the last few years. But if the sun holds it's pattern, we are at the peak or are damn close to it on one side of the curve or another. Then the activity drops off as it goes into a solar minimum phase. Which means across the board cooler weather.

We are probably also due for a bigass volcano to erupt since it's been a minute since the last major eruption that played a significant factor in global temperature changes. Tombora in 1815 was the last major eruption that was significant enough to disrupt weather and temperature patterns (I think).

And libs, lefties and fools fell for every single bit of that.

All while having their wealth and ability to attain wealth drained by their fear mongering masters.

Old Sarge said:

---

Highway6 said:

---

The 1970s libs say hello

---

The one they predicted back then was not really that cold.

I 'member.

---

I remember the blizzards of '77 and '78. Doing chores on the farm during a blizzard with 50-70 MPH sustained winds and -50 wind chills seriously sucked.

Snowmobile sales went through the roof immediately following those blizzards, then there was no significant winter weather after that. A lot of folks replaced their snowmobiles with three-wheelers in the seasons that followed.

VegasAg86 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Actually, global warming is better than global cooling.

---

Manhattan under some water would suck for the people that own the land. Manhattan under a mile thick sheet of ice would mean billions of dead people.

---

You know it wouldn't happen instantly right?

Population decreases would be gradual and people would relocate.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Actually, global warming is better than global cooling.

---

Manhattan under some water would suck for the people that own the land. Manhattan under a mile thick sheet of ice would mean billions of dead people.

---

You know it wouldn't happen instantly right?

Population decreases would be gradual and people would relocate.

---

Of course it would be slow. That's part of the reason worrying about rising seas is ridiculous.

Do you think an earth in which Manhattan is under a mile of ice could support the current population? I don't. Sure, the reduction would be slow, but it would be massive.

VegasAg86 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Actually, global warming is better than global cooling.

---

Manhattan under some water would suck for the people that own the land. Manhattan under a mile thick sheet of ice would mean billions of dead people.

---

You know it wouldn't happen instantly right?

Population decreases would be gradual and people would relocate.

---

Of course it would be slow. That's part of the reason worrying about rising seas is ridiculous.

Do you think an earth in which Manhattan is under a mile of ice could support the current population? I don't. Sure, the reduction would be slow, but it would be massive.

---

But not billions of dead people. Probably a gradual reduction in population leading to billions of people not birthed.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Actually, global warming is better than global cooling.

---

Manhattan under some water would suck for the people that own the land. Manhattan under a mile thick sheet of ice would mean billions of dead people.

---

You know it wouldn't happen instantly right?

Population decreases would be gradual and people would relocate.

---

Of course it would be slow. That's part of the reason worrying about rising seas is ridiculous.

Do you think an earth in which Manhattan is under a mile of ice could support the current population? I don't. Sure, the reduction would be slow, but it would be massive.

---

But not billions of dead people. Probably a gradual reduction in population leading to billions of people not birthed.

---

How many would die in this "gradual reduction"? There are more than 8 billion people on the planet. A 25% loss would be billions. We have people starving in some places now. A massive reduction in food supplies could easily kill billions.

VegasAg86 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Actually, global warming is better than global cooling.

---

Manhattan under some water would suck for the people that own the land. Manhattan under a mile thick sheet of ice would mean billions of dead people.

---

You know it wouldn't happen instantly right?

Population decreases would be gradual and people would relocate.

---

Of course it would be slow. That's part of the reason worrying about rising seas is ridiculous.

Do you think an earth in which Manhattan is under a mile of ice could support the current population? I don't. Sure, the reduction would be slow, but it would be massive.

---

But not billions of dead people. Probably a gradual reduction in population leading to billions of people not birthed.

---

How many would die in this "gradual reduction"? There are more than 8 billion people on the planet. A 25% loss would be billions. We have people starving in some places now. A massive reduction in food supplies could easily kill billions.

---

I guess my question I keep getting that is do you think something literally happens immediately? As in hypothetically, this all occurs in the next like 10 years?

I would assume an ice age would be something that would happen over a hundred thousand years

I don't expect New York to be under a mile thick sheet of ice in 2035.

If that's what you're expecting thenI don't know how to respond to that.

I don't think the AMOC thing happens…

CrackerJackAg said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Actually, global warming is better than global cooling.

---

Manhattan under some water would suck for the people that own the land. Manhattan under a mile thick sheet of ice would mean billions of dead people.

---

You know it wouldn't happen instantly right?

Population decreases would be gradual and people would relocate.

---

Of course it would be slow. That's part of the reason worrying about rising seas is ridiculous.

Do you think an earth in which Manhattan is under a mile of ice could support the current population? I don't. Sure, the reduction would be slow, but it would be massive.

---

But not billions of dead people. Probably a gradual reduction in population leading to billions of people not birthed.

---

How many would die in this "gradual reduction"? There are more than 8 billion people on the planet. A 25% loss would be billions. We have people starving in some places now. A massive reduction in food supplies could easily kill billions.

---

I guess my question I keep getting that is do you think something literally happens immediately? As in hypothetically, this all occurs in the next like 10 years?

I would assume an ice age would be something that would happen over a hundred thousand years

I don't expect New York to be under a mile thick sheet of ice in 2035.

If that's what you're expecting thenI don't know how to respond to that.

---

I don't know how many thousands of years it would take to get Manhattan under that much ice, but the gradual advancement of glaciers will reduce the earth's ability to support the population. People will start dying from starvation and exposure. That number will eventually hit billions. I don't care that the time frame would be huge. I never said it would be immediate.

I hear you but I think the reduction is more related to gradual falling birthdates rather than starvation.

Families choosing to have only 1.8 children reduces the population by 99% in 1000 years.