By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Are We Going Into An Ice Age?

Soonerman said:
Yes we are. Just like last year we were facing global warming cuz the temperatures were higher than normal!

A) I realize this is just one year, so doesn't necessarily mean anything (but wanted to have further discussion on the idea in general anyways, since we are due for one)

B) Not sure about you, but we didn't have a single month last year that was 11° above average. So this case is a lot more extreme than the heat last year.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Around the Network

Remember that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, a much more powerful one that occurs naturally for a number of reasons is Methane. It has 20 times the warming potential so simple CO2 measurements are not the whole picture when it comes to global warming. The wobble in the earth's axis, and the location of the continents relative to the poles all play a part in things.

Weather in individual years and specific locations are not a good indicator of global climate. The amount of local and annual variation is very high. Global warming trends are rather modest by comparison and are only visible when you look at longer term climate data. They still matter despite this since the reference climate normals are on an upward trend.

There is not conspiracy, there is evidence and a lot of discussion about the evidence, the preponderance of which supports anthropogenic global warming.



For any paying attention, here's a little update on our situation!

So that last storm wound up being further SE than expected. St. Cloud picked up only about 2.5" of snow, but there were 6+" amounts to our southeast.

We FINALLY hit not only 50, but also 60 for the first time this year on April 26, 2013. Today, we had a high of about 75, and it is supposed to be about 75 tomorrow as well, as well as upper 60's on Monday and Tuesday.

BUT!!!!!!!!!!

There was disagreement among the models yesterday, but they pretty much all have it now. Beginning next Wednesday, the models are showing the potential for another doozy of a snowstorm. I'm not just talking a tiny inch or two. We all know, as much as we hate it, its possible to get flurries in May in Minnesota. I'm talking, doozy as in areas in Minnesota (if the models are onto something) will be reporting by a massive margin the largest snowstorm ever in Minnesota in May in our recordbooks.

The models have about 2-6" here (which even though not a ton, for May is completely unheard of). Further south (and to make it clear, I'm even being conservative and going with an 8:1 ratio just because its so late in the year that the temps won't be the greatest), models are hinting at 10-20" of snow. Now, we all know models can overdo it at times, but even if we half this, that would still be 5-10" of snow (and the plain and simple fact is, all the models have 1.5-3" of qpf for this long duration event, so the liquid is there, we just need to temps).

If this does indeed happen, what a friggin way to end the winter that wouldn't give up.

While climatology wouldn't in any way support this happening, climatology also doesn't support getting 25-30" of snow in April with 2 of the bigger storms seen this year. Looking back, I wasn't able to find a ton, but I was able to find something indicating that it isn't impossible for this to happen: http://www.crh.noaa.gov/arx/?n=may27291947snow

That particular snowstorm dumped up to 12" of snow on Nebraska and Iowa, and that wasn't even at the beginning of May, that one began May 27th (1947). It takes the most perfect conditions for something like this to happen, but with a year that has been like this so far, I honestly wouldn't put it behind the weather gods to dump on us yet again a pile of that damned fluffy white cum.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

allenmaher said:
Remember that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, a much more powerful one that occurs naturally for a number of reasons is Methane. It has 20 times the warming potential so simple CO2 measurements are not the whole picture when it comes to global warming. The wobble in the earth's axis, and the location of the continents relative to the poles all play a part in things.

Weather in individual years and specific locations are not a good indicator of global climate. The amount of local and annual variation is very high. Global warming trends are rather modest by comparison and are only visible when you look at longer term climate data. They still matter despite this since the reference climate normals are on an upward trend.

There is not conspiracy, there is evidence and a lot of discussion about the evidence, the preponderance of which supports anthropogenic global warming.


Carbon Dioxide is one of the least potent greenhouse gases there are.  Water Vapor, on the other hand, is a lot more potent. 

From what I hear, Carbon Dioxide is quite harmless.  That, and our contribution to "global warming" is less than 1%.



We are already in an ice age.
Definition of ice age:
A cold period marked by episodes of extensive glaciation alternating with episodes of relative warmth.



 Been away for a bit, but sneaking back in.

Gaming on: PS4, PC, 3DS. Got a Switch! Mainly to play Smash

Around the Network
MDMAlliance said:
allenmaher said:
Remember that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, a much more powerful one that occurs naturally for a number of reasons is Methane. It has 20 times the warming potential so simple CO2 measurements are not the whole picture when it comes to global warming. The wobble in the earth's axis, and the location of the continents relative to the poles all play a part in things.

Weather in individual years and specific locations are not a good indicator of global climate. The amount of local and annual variation is very high. Global warming trends are rather modest by comparison and are only visible when you look at longer term climate data. They still matter despite this since the reference climate normals are on an upward trend.

There is not conspiracy, there is evidence and a lot of discussion about the evidence, the preponderance of which supports anthropogenic global warming.


Carbon Dioxide is one of the least potent greenhouse gases there are.  Water Vapor, on the other hand, is a lot more potent. 

From what I hear, Carbon Dioxide is quite harmless.  That, and our contribution to "global warming" is less than 1%.


Carbon dioxide only blocks part of the spectrum but is in much higher concentrations than other GHGs. Unlike water vapour, CO2 it is a unidirectional temperature forcing.  Water vapour acts as both warming and cooling blocking energy from escaping and reflecting energy back out into space.

According to the latest journals that I have read the probability that the current warmin trend is caused by us is about 90% certain, while the next leading candidate, natural causes is about 10%.  While this is not considered a conclusive proof, which in large dynamic systems we would put at 95% or better, the likelyhood of natural causes is very low.  That is what we mean by perponderance of the evidence, it is overwhelmingly the most likely explanation.

The figure you are quoting of 1% seems to be erroneous, I would check your sources.



We already are in an "ice age" its just that this is the warmer period of the ice age.

The basic rule is

Ice age = we have poles full of ice

non ice age = we dont have ice there. (natural iceless poles)

There is some other aspects to concider but we are in an ice age and if the poles will melt thanks to global warming we will still have the ice age since the melting was not natural etc and "ice on poles" is not the only thing required for having an ice age.

P.S.  Ice age also means that there is  ICE somewhere on the planet. So when there is no snow in the Alps but no snow at the poles  we still have the ice age.

Ice age doesnt refer to a white frozen ball thats flying around in space  its just talking about   temperatures and  chance of frozen water etc. Distance to sun etc.



allenmaher said:
MDMAlliance said:
allenmaher said:
Remember that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, a much more powerful one that occurs naturally for a number of reasons is Methane. It has 20 times the warming potential so simple CO2 measurements are not the whole picture when it comes to global warming. The wobble in the earth's axis, and the location of the continents relative to the poles all play a part in things.

Weather in individual years and specific locations are not a good indicator of global climate. The amount of local and annual variation is very high. Global warming trends are rather modest by comparison and are only visible when you look at longer term climate data. They still matter despite this since the reference climate normals are on an upward trend.

There is not conspiracy, there is evidence and a lot of discussion about the evidence, the preponderance of which supports anthropogenic global warming.


Carbon Dioxide is one of the least potent greenhouse gases there are.  Water Vapor, on the other hand, is a lot more potent. 

From what I hear, Carbon Dioxide is quite harmless.  That, and our contribution to "global warming" is less than 1%.


Carbon dioxide only blocks part of the spectrum but is in much higher concentrations than other GHGs. Unlike water vapour, CO2 it is a unidirectional temperature forcing.  Water vapour acts as both warming and cooling blocking energy from escaping and reflecting energy back out into space.

According to the latest journals that I have read the probability that the current warmin trend is caused by us is about 90% certain, while the next leading candidate, natural causes is about 10%.  While this is not considered a conclusive proof, which in large dynamic systems we would put at 95% or better, the likelyhood of natural causes is very low.  That is what we mean by perponderance of the evidence, it is overwhelmingly the most likely explanation.

The figure you are quoting of 1% seems to be erroneous, I would check your sources.


I said from what I hear, and I heard it from some chemical engineer.



Well, being that national news still probably doesn't give a rats ass (no really, even in a May snowstorm that completely smashed all MN records, it won't get more than a few seconds, when if the East coast gets an inch, its all they talk about).

For an update, we didn't personally get any snow in St. Cloud, but Southern MN got 10-16" in this round for the (quite literally) famous winter that won't give up. From St. Cloud down to Rochester, the record May snowfall is about 3". The largest snowfall in MN history in May is 10" way up north. Well, St. Cloud didn't break any records, but my goodness, the state as a whole did.

I mean, for crying out loud, 10-16" in May. The last time we even got an inch in May wasn't even in my life (yea, we can get sprinkles, and an inch is possible, but incredibly rare).

That marks the 4th very large snowstorm in Minnesota since the beginning of April (there is an average of .1 storms per year >5" after April 1st...aka once every 10 years we see an April snowstorm >5"). We had April 11th with about 10", April 18th with about 14", another one after that that some areas got in excess of 6", and now May 1st with southern MN receiving 10-16".

I'm having a REALLY tough time believing this is global warming induced (but I know people will tell me it is). So global warming means MN is going to start receiving gigantic snowstorms in April and May that completely smash all records? I can understand the argument where in the winter, if the average temps are a couple degrees warmer, the air can hold more moisture, therefore snowstorms can actually be larger (so we will see more extreme weather in the winter...it makes sense). It doesn't make sense at all in the context of April/May.

Something really funky is going on with the weather, and I'm not sure I like it, whatever it is. 2 winters ago was one of the snowiest winters in MN history (with the metro area receiving upwards of 100" of snow...St Cloud got about 65", which was like 8th snowiest). Last year proceeded to be an immensely snowless winter, where our totals were about 20" for the year, with much of it (about 8") coming in 1 storm that melted immediately (meaning the ground was not snow covered for a majority of the year). Not to mention, last year, heat records were continuously being broken. This year, we see a very rare 2nd consecutive winter with no lows less than -20F (about -30C) (it was still cold, just no brutal cold), the end of the winter being just consistently cold and it not wanting to give up, and yet again, a ridiculous amount of snow.

3 years in a row of some of the most extreme winters imaginable. As I said (despite my lack of belief towards global warming), the 1st severe winter (2 years ago) makes sense. Tons of very large snowstorms due to warmer air logic. Last winter just an overall warm winter. But this winter now, I don't even know.

As another aside, a thing to mention for this winter, almost all of our snow came in large snowstorms. Generally if we get this much snow in the winter, it is snowing all the time with clipper systems, etc. Not this year.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.