Royal Society: Research confirms its gonna be gettng ALOT colder!!!

[skookerasbil]

Im laughing.

How many times have ENVIRONMENT forum members who are also part of the religion roll out the Royal Society to back their hoax? I'll tell you how many times.........about 4 billion.

Turns out, a top Royal Society professor claimed at their annual meeting that in a few years, there is a very good chance of the earth getting colder..........in fact, possibly a lot colder!!!

Cold sun rising - The Nation

Dying to see the k00ks response to this!!!


Turns out? The sun has a dramatic effect on our planet's climate........but not to the AGW nut balls who say ONLY CO2 is contributing to changes in the climate.

Know what that is?


ghey




[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/cucumber.jpg.html'][/URL]






so much losing................

 

[skookerasbil]

PS...............from above link...........the AGW bozo's have created this ruse "consensus" narrative over the years......but.................but....................but.................


This past summer the cold didn't let up, with more temperature records across the US and rare summer snows seen in Canada, the US and China. Birds have migrated early in the last two years. Antarctic sea ice set a new record in 2013 and it was broken again in 2014. Not even Thailand was immune. In 2014 Bangkok hit its coldest low in 30 years, while 63 lives were lost in the North.

Scientists at the Climate and Environmental Physics and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Berne in Switzerland have recently backed up theories that support the sun's importance in determining the climate on Earth. A paper published last year by the American Meteorological Society contradicts claims by IPCC scientists that the sun couldn't be responsible for major shifts in climate. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, rejected IPCC assertions that solar variations don't matter. Among the many studies and authorities she cited was the National Research Council's recent report "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate".

Other researchers and organisations are also predicting global cooling - the Russian Academy of Science, the Astronomical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Scientists, the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism Russia, Victor Manuel Velesco Herrera at the National University of Mexico, the Bulgarian Institute of Astronomy, Dr Tim Patterson at Carleton University in Canada, Drs Lin Zhen at Nanjing University in China, just to name a few - See more at: Cold sun rising - The Nation




[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Zero.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[mamooth]

Given deniers have been failing so hard with their cooling predictions for decades now, why would anyone believe this one?

Pickin's are clearly mighty slim in Denierstan. I've lost track of how many times they've breathlessly recycled this opinion of one Russian scientist.

 

[skookerasbil]

Given deniers have been failing so hard with their cooling predictions for decades now, why would anyone believe this one?

Pickin's are clearly mighty slim in Denierstan. I've lost track of how many times they've breathlessly recycled this opinion of one Russian scientist.

LOL....what a phony.......Royal Astronomical Society FTMFW s0n!!!!


New studies flip climate-change notions upside down

The sun will go into "hibernation" mode around 2030, and it has already started to get sleepy. At the Royal Astronomical Society's annual meeting in July, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University in the UK confirmed it - the sun will begin its Maunder Minimum (Grand Solar Minimum) in 15 years. Other scientists had suggested years ago that this change was imminent, but Zharkova's model is said to have near-perfect accuracy.

- See more at: Cold sun rising - The Nation






Imagine how stocks are going to be soon for snowblowers, ski parka's, handwarmers, ski resorts, snow shovels, boots, fire wood, space heaters, ice breaker ships, sleds, snowboards, snow tires...............

Cant wait to see the polls on this whole global warming stuff then.............

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, so that is a prediction for 2030. And because of that we supposed to do nothing at present to reduce our emissions of GHGs. How conveniant for the energy corporations.

 

[skookerasbil]

OK, so that is a prediction for 2030. And because of that we supposed to do nothing at present to reduce our emissions of GHGs. How conveniant for the energy corporations.

But only in the world of the AGW folks do costs not matter.......reducing emissions is always presented as if there are no costs attached.

The stoppidest thing I can think of is, with this new evidence, would be being ok with having our electric bills double while China ups its coal use 50%!!! I think if most Americans were aware of that ( they're not ) their reaction would be "WTF??!!!"......not logical to think any other way.

Lastly....Zahrkova's models have near 100% accuracy.......historically, most of the AGW climate models are 100% wrong.

 

[Billy_Bob]

PS...............from above link...........the AGW bozo's have created this ruse "consensus" narrative over the years......but.................but....................but.................


This past summer the cold didn't let up, with more temperature records across the US and rare summer snows seen in Canada, the US and China. Birds have migrated early in the last two years. Antarctic sea ice set a new record in 2013 and it was broken again in 2014. Not even Thailand was immune. In 2014 Bangkok hit its coldest low in 30 years, while 63 lives were lost in the North.

Scientists at the Climate and Environmental Physics and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Berne in Switzerland have recently backed up theories that support the sun's importance in determining the climate on Earth. A paper published last year by the American Meteorological Society contradicts claims by IPCC scientists that the sun couldn't be responsible for major shifts in climate. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, rejected IPCC assertions that solar variations don't matter. Among the many studies and authorities she cited was the National Research Council's recent report "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate".

Other researchers and organisations are also predicting global cooling - the Russian Academy of Science, the Astronomical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Scientists, the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism Russia, Victor Manuel Velesco Herrera at the National University of Mexico, the Bulgarian Institute of Astronomy, Dr Tim Patterson at Carleton University in Canada, Drs Lin Zhen at Nanjing University in China, just to name a few - See more at: Cold sun rising - The Nation

Right now its the nuts screaming BUT THE EL NINO Is making it hotter... THE HOTTEST EVA!

One only has to think for about two seconds, when the El Nino heat is gone and there is no more positive pressure on global temps, after 18 years 8 months of no warming, what is gonna happen?

Even three blind mice could tell you its going to get dam cold quick.

 

[Mr. H.]

It doesn't matter. The fix is in. We're fucked.

 

[flacaltenn]

Given deniers have been failing so hard with their cooling predictions for decades now, why would anyone believe this one?

Pickin's are clearly mighty slim in Denierstan. I've lost track of how many times they've breathlessly recycled this opinion of one Russian scientist.

Have you LOOKED at the evidence?? The pattern of pre-Maunder minimum sun spot activity and shapes and sizes versus the last 3 or 4 of ours? Like I said the other day .. It's like a Power Ball drawing and the first 4 numbers match.. You best stop whining about stuff and take a look for yourself. This chart compares to Dalton Minimum, but it's the same idea.

Hell -- the whole warmer argument for GW depends on matching patterns between temperature and CO2 and calling it a match.. You ought to LOVE stuff like this...

The graph I pulled is VERY old.. Go find a NEWER one and tell me you're not a little worried about having to find a new hobby and new bunch of folks to do your psycho rants at..

 

[RollingThunder]

Im laughing.

How many times have ENVIRONMENT forum members who are also part of the religion roll out the Royal Society to back their hoax? I'll tell you how many times.........about 4 billion.

Turns out, a top Royal Society professor claimed at their annual meeting that in a few years, there is a very good chance of the earth getting colder..........in fact, possibly a lot colder!!!

Cold sun rising - The Nation

That is just more fraudulent denier cult propaganda, with very little real basis in reality. Neither the 'professor' nor the paper presented to The Royal Society ever claimed that the world would get colder. The projected cooling from an extended solar minimum is far less than the global warming from the increased CO2 levels.

No, the sun isn't going to save us from global warming
A solar minimum would offset no more than a decade’s worth of human-caused global warming
The Guardian
Dana Nuccitelli
16 July 2015
(excerpts)
Even the grandest solar minimum would have a minor impact on global temperatures compared to the rapid warming stemming from human carbon pollution. Photograph: Solar Dynamics Observatory/Nasa

A number of scientific studies have asked the question, ‘if the sun were to enter another extended quiet phase (a grand solar minimum), how would that impact global surface temperatures?’. Every study agrees, it would cause no more than 0.3°C cooling, which would only be enough to temporarily offset about a decade’s worth of human-caused global warming.


The global mean temperature difference is shown for the time period 1900 to 2100 for the IPCC A2 emissions scenario. The red line shows predicted temperature change for the current level of solar activity, the blue line shows predicted temperature change for solar activity at the much lower level of the Maunder Minimum, and the black line shows observed temperatures through 2010. Adapted from Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010) by SkepticalScience.com

This ‘impending mini ice age’ myth is incredibly easy to debunk. In fact it just takes asking one simple question – if the sun is such a key driver of the Earth’s climate, then why has the entire planet (air, oceans, land, and ice) warmed rapidly over the past 60 years while solar activity has declined?

Annual global surface temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). Source: Skeptical Science

That simple question is sufficient on its own to debunk the notion that the sun is the main driver of global temperatures. Research has clearly shown, it’s carbon dioxide that’s the temperature’s main control knob.

Second, research has suggested that the solar minimum around the year 1650 played a relatively small role in the cool temperatures during the Little Ice Age. Instead, heightened volcanic activity (pumping ash into the atmosphere that blocks sunlight) and a drop in atmospheric carbon levels were the main contributors to the cooling during that time.

Third, the Little Ice Age wasn’t even that cold, globally. The following chart shows the most comprehensive global surface temperature reconstruction to date, from the PAGES 2k Consortium. In just the past few decades the planet has warmed more than it cooled during the entire Little Ice Age.

Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean surface temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman. 400 years of sunspot observations are inlaid, created by Robert Rohde.

There was significant regional cooling during the mini ice age, particularly in parts of Europe and North America, but globally it was indeed quite little.

Fourth, a grand solar minimum would be a temporary phase. Any cooling it caused would only last a few decades until the end of the event, at which point the increase in solar activity would contribute to global warming.

In summary, the difference between the Little Ice Age and current warming period comes down to volcanoes, carbon dioxide, and magnitude. The previous cool period was quite small, likely caused mostly by volcanic activity. And of course, humans weren’t pumping over 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year in the 17th century, as we are now.

The bottom line: even the grandest solar minimum would have a minor impact on global temperatures compared to the rapid warming stemming from human carbon pollution.

 

[skookerasbil]

Im laughing.

How many times have ENVIRONMENT forum members who are also part of the religion roll out the Royal Society to back their hoax? I'll tell you how many times.........about 4 billion.

Turns out, a top Royal Society professor claimed at their annual meeting that in a few years, there is a very good chance of the earth getting colder..........in fact, possibly a lot colder!!!

Cold sun rising - The Nation

That is just more fraudulent denier cult propaganda, with very little real basis in reality. Neither the 'professor' nor the paper presented to The Royal Society ever claimed that the world would get colder. The projected cooling from an extended solar minimum is far less than the global warming from the increased CO2 levels.

No, the sun isn't going to save us from global warming
A solar minimum would offset no more than a decade’s worth of human-caused global warming
The Guardian
Dana Nuccitelli
16 July 2015
(excerpts)
Even the grandest solar minimum would have a minor impact on global temperatures compared to the rapid warming stemming from human carbon pollution. Photograph: Solar Dynamics Observatory/Nasa

A number of scientific studies have asked the question, ‘if the sun were to enter another extended quiet phase (a grand solar minimum), how would that impact global surface temperatures?’. Every study agrees, it would cause no more than 0.3°C cooling, which would only be enough to temporarily offset about a decade’s worth of human-caused global warming.


The global mean temperature difference is shown for the time period 1900 to 2100 for the IPCC A2 emissions scenario. The red line shows predicted temperature change for the current level of solar activity, the blue line shows predicted temperature change for solar activity at the much lower level of the Maunder Minimum, and the black line shows observed temperatures through 2010. Adapted from Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010) by SkepticalScience.com

This ‘impending mini ice age’ myth is incredibly easy to debunk. In fact it just takes asking one simple question – if the sun is such a key driver of the Earth’s climate, then why has the entire planet (air, oceans, land, and ice) warmed rapidly over the past 60 years while solar activity has declined?

Annual global surface temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). Source: Skeptical Science

That simple question is sufficient on its own to debunk the notion that the sun is the main driver of global temperatures. Research has clearly shown, it’s carbon dioxide that’s the temperature’s main control knob.

Second, research has suggested that the solar minimum around the year 1650 played a relatively small role in the cool temperatures during the Little Ice Age. Instead, heightened volcanic activity (pumping ash into the atmosphere that blocks sunlight) and a drop in atmospheric carbon levels were the main contributors to the cooling during that time.

Third, the Little Ice Age wasn’t even that cold, globally. The following chart shows the most comprehensive global surface temperature reconstruction to date, from the PAGES 2k Consortium. In just the past few decades the planet has warmed more than it cooled during the entire Little Ice Age.

Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean surface temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman. 400 years of sunspot observations are inlaid, created by Robert Rohde.

There was significant regional cooling during the mini ice age, particularly in parts of Europe and North America, but globally it was indeed quite little.

Fourth, a grand solar minimum would be a temporary phase. Any cooling it caused would only last a few decades until the end of the event, at which point the increase in solar activity would contribute to global warming.

In summary, the difference between the Little Ice Age and current warming period comes down to volcanoes, carbon dioxide, and magnitude. The previous cool period was quite small, likely caused mostly by volcanic activity. And of course, humans weren’t pumping over 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year in the 17th century, as we are now.

The bottom line: even the grandest solar minimum would have a minor impact on global temperatures compared to the rapid warming stemming from human carbon pollution.

nobody cares about 1/2 a degree s0n!!!

Only the fringe OCD AGW k00ks get freaked by this.

PS....I think your font needs to be a little bit bigger!!!




And for those who are sorta new to the ENVIRONMENT forum, we have this forum member Rolling Thunder here. He drops into the forum every few months for a few weeks, posts up the same ghey links/photos/articles ( like the giant sun one above )..........and then disappears for months. We always know he's back from the tone of the posts........angry.............miserable.........and always, hysterical.

 

[RollingThunder]

Im laughing.
How many times have ENVIRONMENT forum members who are also part of the religion roll out the Royal Society to back their hoax? I'll tell you how many times.........about 4 billion.
Turns out, a top Royal Society professor claimed at their annual meeting that in a few years, there is a very good chance of the earth getting colder..........in fact, possibly a lot colder!!!
Cold sun rising - The Nation

That is just more fraudulent denier cult propaganda, with very little real basis in reality. Neither the 'professor' nor the paper presented to The Royal Society ever claimed that the world would get colder. The projected cooling from an extended solar minimum is far less than the global warming from the increased CO2 levels.

No, the sun isn't going to save us from global warming
A solar minimum would offset no more than a decade’s worth of human-caused global warming
The Guardian
Dana Nuccitelli
16 July 2015
(excerpts)
Even the grandest solar minimum would have a minor impact on global temperatures compared to the rapid warming stemming from human carbon pollution. Photograph: Solar Dynamics Observatory/Nasa

A number of scientific studies have asked the question, ‘if the sun were to enter another extended quiet phase (a grand solar minimum), how would that impact global surface temperatures?’. Every study agrees, it would cause no more than 0.3°C cooling, which would only be enough to temporarily offset about a decade’s worth of human-caused global warming.


The global mean temperature difference is shown for the time period 1900 to 2100 for the IPCC A2 emissions scenario. The red line shows predicted temperature change for the current level of solar activity, the blue line shows predicted temperature change for solar activity at the much lower level of the Maunder Minimum, and the black line shows observed temperatures through 2010. Adapted from Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010) by SkepticalScience.com

This ‘impending mini ice age’ myth is incredibly easy to debunk. In fact it just takes asking one simple question – if the sun is such a key driver of the Earth’s climate, then why has the entire planet (air, oceans, land, and ice) warmed rapidly over the past 60 years while solar activity has declined?

Annual global surface temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). Source: Skeptical Science

That simple question is sufficient on its own to debunk the notion that the sun is the main driver of global temperatures. Research has clearly shown, it’s carbon dioxide that’s the temperature’s main control knob.

Second, research has suggested that the solar minimum around the year 1650 played a relatively small role in the cool temperatures during the Little Ice Age. Instead, heightened volcanic activity (pumping ash into the atmosphere that blocks sunlight) and a drop in atmospheric carbon levels were the main contributors to the cooling during that time.

Third, the Little Ice Age wasn’t even that cold, globally. The following chart shows the most comprehensive global surface temperature reconstruction to date, from the PAGES 2k Consortium. In just the past few decades the planet has warmed more than it cooled during the entire Little Ice Age.

Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean surface temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman. 400 years of sunspot observations are inlaid, created by Robert Rohde.

There was significant regional cooling during the mini ice age, particularly in parts of Europe and North America, but globally it was indeed quite little.

Fourth, a grand solar minimum would be a temporary phase. Any cooling it caused would only last a few decades until the end of the event, at which point the increase in solar activity would contribute to global warming.

In summary, the difference between the Little Ice Age and current warming period comes down to volcanoes, carbon dioxide, and magnitude. The previous cool period was quite small, likely caused mostly by volcanic activity. And of course, humans weren’t pumping over 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year in the 17th century, as we are now.

The bottom line: even the grandest solar minimum would have a minor impact on global temperatures compared to the rapid warming stemming from human carbon pollution.

nobody cares about 1/2 a degree. Only the fringe OCD AGW k00ks get freaked by this. PS....I think your font needs to be a little bit bigger!!! And for those who are sorta new to the ENVIRONMENT forum, we have this forum member Rolling Thunder here. He drops into the forum every few months for a few weeks, posts up the same ghey links/photos/articles ( like the giant sun one above )..........and then disappears for months. We always know he's back from the tone of the posts........angry.............miserable.........and always, hysterical.

Your fraudulent moronic OP got completely debunked in post #10. Your demented denier cult myths and bogus propaganda get regularly debunked, especially if I'm around. You are an anti-science troll and you always post utter bullcrap and lies.

 

[jc456]

Im laughing.
How many times have ENVIRONMENT forum members who are also part of the religion roll out the Royal Society to back their hoax? I'll tell you how many times.........about 4 billion.
Turns out, a top Royal Society professor claimed at their annual meeting that in a few years, there is a very good chance of the earth getting colder..........in fact, possibly a lot colder!!!
Cold sun rising - The Nation

That is just more fraudulent denier cult propaganda, with very little real basis in reality. Neither the 'professor' nor the paper presented to The Royal Society ever claimed that the world would get colder. The projected cooling from an extended solar minimum is far less than the global warming from the increased CO2 levels.

No, the sun isn't going to save us from global warming
A solar minimum would offset no more than a decade’s worth of human-caused global warming
The Guardian
Dana Nuccitelli
16 July 2015
(excerpts)
Even the grandest solar minimum would have a minor impact on global temperatures compared to the rapid warming stemming from human carbon pollution. Photograph: Solar Dynamics Observatory/Nasa

A number of scientific studies have asked the question, ‘if the sun were to enter another extended quiet phase (a grand solar minimum), how would that impact global surface temperatures?’. Every study agrees, it would cause no more than 0.3°C cooling, which would only be enough to temporarily offset about a decade’s worth of human-caused global warming.


The global mean temperature difference is shown for the time period 1900 to 2100 for the IPCC A2 emissions scenario. The red line shows predicted temperature change for the current level of solar activity, the blue line shows predicted temperature change for solar activity at the much lower level of the Maunder Minimum, and the black line shows observed temperatures through 2010. Adapted from Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010) by SkepticalScience.com

This ‘impending mini ice age’ myth is incredibly easy to debunk. In fact it just takes asking one simple question – if the sun is such a key driver of the Earth’s climate, then why has the entire planet (air, oceans, land, and ice) warmed rapidly over the past 60 years while solar activity has declined?

Annual global surface temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). Source: Skeptical Science

That simple question is sufficient on its own to debunk the notion that the sun is the main driver of global temperatures. Research has clearly shown, it’s carbon dioxide that’s the temperature’s main control knob.

Second, research has suggested that the solar minimum around the year 1650 played a relatively small role in the cool temperatures during the Little Ice Age. Instead, heightened volcanic activity (pumping ash into the atmosphere that blocks sunlight) and a drop in atmospheric carbon levels were the main contributors to the cooling during that time.

Third, the Little Ice Age wasn’t even that cold, globally. The following chart shows the most comprehensive global surface temperature reconstruction to date, from the PAGES 2k Consortium. In just the past few decades the planet has warmed more than it cooled during the entire Little Ice Age.

Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean surface temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman. 400 years of sunspot observations are inlaid, created by Robert Rohde.

There was significant regional cooling during the mini ice age, particularly in parts of Europe and North America, but globally it was indeed quite little.

Fourth, a grand solar minimum would be a temporary phase. Any cooling it caused would only last a few decades until the end of the event, at which point the increase in solar activity would contribute to global warming.

In summary, the difference between the Little Ice Age and current warming period comes down to volcanoes, carbon dioxide, and magnitude. The previous cool period was quite small, likely caused mostly by volcanic activity. And of course, humans weren’t pumping over 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year in the 17th century, as we are now.

The bottom line: even the grandest solar minimum would have a minor impact on global temperatures compared to the rapid warming stemming from human carbon pollution.

nobody cares about 1/2 a degree. Only the fringe OCD AGW k00ks get freaked by this. PS....I think your font needs to be a little bit bigger!!! And for those who are sorta new to the ENVIRONMENT forum, we have this forum member Rolling Thunder here. He drops into the forum every few months for a few weeks, posts up the same ghey links/photos/articles ( like the giant sun one above )..........and then disappears for months. We always know he's back from the tone of the posts........angry.............miserable.........and always, hysterical.

Your fraudulent moronic OP got completely debunked in post #10. Your demented denier cult myths and bogus propaganda get regularly debunked, especially if I'm around. You are an anti-science troll and you always post utter bullcrap and lies.

ahh the little climate denier got his feathers ruffled. Royal Society gave you a tummy ache, nice. Thanks for sharing your loser skills.

 

[RollingThunder]

Im laughing.
How many times have ENVIRONMENT forum members who are also part of the religion roll out the Royal Society to back their hoax? I'll tell you how many times.........about 4 billion.
Turns out, a top Royal Society professor claimed at their annual meeting that in a few years, there is a very good chance of the earth getting colder..........in fact, possibly a lot colder!!!
Cold sun rising - The Nation

That is just more fraudulent denier cult propaganda, with very little real basis in reality. Neither the 'professor' nor the paper presented to The Royal Society ever claimed that the world would get colder. The projected cooling from an extended solar minimum is far less than the global warming from the increased CO2 levels.

No, the sun isn't going to save us from global warming
A solar minimum would offset no more than a decade’s worth of human-caused global warming
The Guardian
Dana Nuccitelli
16 July 2015
(excerpts)
Even the grandest solar minimum would have a minor impact on global temperatures compared to the rapid warming stemming from human carbon pollution. Photograph: Solar Dynamics Observatory/Nasa

A number of scientific studies have asked the question, ‘if the sun were to enter another extended quiet phase (a grand solar minimum), how would that impact global surface temperatures?’. Every study agrees, it would cause no more than 0.3°C cooling, which would only be enough to temporarily offset about a decade’s worth of human-caused global warming.


The global mean temperature difference is shown for the time period 1900 to 2100 for the IPCC A2 emissions scenario. The red line shows predicted temperature change for the current level of solar activity, the blue line shows predicted temperature change for solar activity at the much lower level of the Maunder Minimum, and the black line shows observed temperatures through 2010. Adapted from Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010) by SkepticalScience.com

This ‘impending mini ice age’ myth is incredibly easy to debunk. In fact it just takes asking one simple question – if the sun is such a key driver of the Earth’s climate, then why has the entire planet (air, oceans, land, and ice) warmed rapidly over the past 60 years while solar activity has declined?

Annual global surface temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). Source: Skeptical Science

That simple question is sufficient on its own to debunk the notion that the sun is the main driver of global temperatures. Research has clearly shown, it’s carbon dioxide that’s the temperature’s main control knob.

Second, research has suggested that the solar minimum around the year 1650 played a relatively small role in the cool temperatures during the Little Ice Age. Instead, heightened volcanic activity (pumping ash into the atmosphere that blocks sunlight) and a drop in atmospheric carbon levels were the main contributors to the cooling during that time.

Third, the Little Ice Age wasn’t even that cold, globally. The following chart shows the most comprehensive global surface temperature reconstruction to date, from the PAGES 2k Consortium. In just the past few decades the planet has warmed more than it cooled during the entire Little Ice Age.

Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean surface temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman. 400 years of sunspot observations are inlaid, created by Robert Rohde.

There was significant regional cooling during the mini ice age, particularly in parts of Europe and North America, but globally it was indeed quite little.

Fourth, a grand solar minimum would be a temporary phase. Any cooling it caused would only last a few decades until the end of the event, at which point the increase in solar activity would contribute to global warming.

In summary, the difference between the Little Ice Age and current warming period comes down to volcanoes, carbon dioxide, and magnitude. The previous cool period was quite small, likely caused mostly by volcanic activity. And of course, humans weren’t pumping over 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year in the 17th century, as we are now.

The bottom line: even the grandest solar minimum would have a minor impact on global temperatures compared to the rapid warming stemming from human carbon pollution.

nobody cares about 1/2 a degree. Only the fringe OCD AGW k00ks get freaked by this. PS....I think your font needs to be a little bit bigger!!! And for those who are sorta new to the ENVIRONMENT forum, we have this forum member Rolling Thunder here. He drops into the forum every few months for a few weeks, posts up the same ghey links/photos/articles ( like the giant sun one above )..........and then disappears for months. We always know he's back from the tone of the posts........angry.............miserable.........and always, hysterical.

Your fraudulent moronic OP got completely debunked in post #10. Your demented denier cult myths and bogus propaganda get regularly debunked, especially if I'm around. You are an anti-science troll and you always post utter bullcrap and lies.

ahh the little climate denier got his feathers ruffled. Royal Society gave you a tummy ache, nice. Thanks for sharing your loser skills.

LOLOL.....the fraudulent OP got completely debunked but you are too brainwashed and insane to grasp that fact so you continue to make yourself look like an utter idiot....LOLOL...

 

[jc456]

Im laughing.
How many times have ENVIRONMENT forum members who are also part of the religion roll out the Royal Society to back their hoax? I'll tell you how many times.........about 4 billion.
Turns out, a top Royal Society professor claimed at their annual meeting that in a few years, there is a very good chance of the earth getting colder..........in fact, possibly a lot colder!!!
Cold sun rising - The Nation

That is just more fraudulent denier cult propaganda, with very little real basis in reality. Neither the 'professor' nor the paper presented to The Royal Society ever claimed that the world would get colder. The projected cooling from an extended solar minimum is far less than the global warming from the increased CO2 levels.

No, the sun isn't going to save us from global warming
A solar minimum would offset no more than a decade’s worth of human-caused global warming
The Guardian
Dana Nuccitelli
16 July 2015
(excerpts)
Even the grandest solar minimum would have a minor impact on global temperatures compared to the rapid warming stemming from human carbon pollution. Photograph: Solar Dynamics Observatory/Nasa

A number of scientific studies have asked the question, ‘if the sun were to enter another extended quiet phase (a grand solar minimum), how would that impact global surface temperatures?’. Every study agrees, it would cause no more than 0.3°C cooling, which would only be enough to temporarily offset about a decade’s worth of human-caused global warming.


The global mean temperature difference is shown for the time period 1900 to 2100 for the IPCC A2 emissions scenario. The red line shows predicted temperature change for the current level of solar activity, the blue line shows predicted temperature change for solar activity at the much lower level of the Maunder Minimum, and the black line shows observed temperatures through 2010. Adapted from Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010) by SkepticalScience.com

This ‘impending mini ice age’ myth is incredibly easy to debunk. In fact it just takes asking one simple question – if the sun is such a key driver of the Earth’s climate, then why has the entire planet (air, oceans, land, and ice) warmed rapidly over the past 60 years while solar activity has declined?

Annual global surface temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). Source: Skeptical Science

That simple question is sufficient on its own to debunk the notion that the sun is the main driver of global temperatures. Research has clearly shown, it’s carbon dioxide that’s the temperature’s main control knob.

Second, research has suggested that the solar minimum around the year 1650 played a relatively small role in the cool temperatures during the Little Ice Age. Instead, heightened volcanic activity (pumping ash into the atmosphere that blocks sunlight) and a drop in atmospheric carbon levels were the main contributors to the cooling during that time.

Third, the Little Ice Age wasn’t even that cold, globally. The following chart shows the most comprehensive global surface temperature reconstruction to date, from the PAGES 2k Consortium. In just the past few decades the planet has warmed more than it cooled during the entire Little Ice Age.

Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean surface temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman. 400 years of sunspot observations are inlaid, created by Robert Rohde.

There was significant regional cooling during the mini ice age, particularly in parts of Europe and North America, but globally it was indeed quite little.

Fourth, a grand solar minimum would be a temporary phase. Any cooling it caused would only last a few decades until the end of the event, at which point the increase in solar activity would contribute to global warming.

In summary, the difference between the Little Ice Age and current warming period comes down to volcanoes, carbon dioxide, and magnitude. The previous cool period was quite small, likely caused mostly by volcanic activity. And of course, humans weren’t pumping over 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year in the 17th century, as we are now.

The bottom line: even the grandest solar minimum would have a minor impact on global temperatures compared to the rapid warming stemming from human carbon pollution.

nobody cares about 1/2 a degree. Only the fringe OCD AGW k00ks get freaked by this. PS....I think your font needs to be a little bit bigger!!! And for those who are sorta new to the ENVIRONMENT forum, we have this forum member Rolling Thunder here. He drops into the forum every few months for a few weeks, posts up the same ghey links/photos/articles ( like the giant sun one above )..........and then disappears for months. We always know he's back from the tone of the posts........angry.............miserable.........and always, hysterical.

Your fraudulent moronic OP got completely debunked in post #10. Your demented denier cult myths and bogus propaganda get regularly debunked, especially if I'm around. You are an anti-science troll and you always post utter bullcrap and lies.

ahh the little climate denier got his feathers ruffled. Royal Society gave you a tummy ache, nice. Thanks for sharing your loser skills.

LOLOL.....the fraudulent OP got completely debunked but you are too brainwashed and insane to grasp that fact so you continue to make yourself look like an utter idiot....LOLOL...

The OP got exactly the reaction he thought he'd get from deniers as yourself. It is a daily routine in here to see the ultimate ass kicking you and yours get because you have no facts to support your position. And you break it down and still can't figure it out. So just pop up here the piece that proves your position.

Namely the scientist name not paid by the government that agrees with your position. Still waiting.

The Royals win.

 

[RollingThunder]

The OP got exactly the reaction he thought he'd get from deniers as yourself.

Scornful laughter? Really? That's what you figure he was going for?

Or was it the rapid debunking?

you have no facts to support your position.

LOLOLOL.....it is always so hilarious when ignorant dumbfucks like yourself say something like that, basically to the entire world scientific community, who almost unanimously affirm the reality and dangers of human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes. And of course, the fact that it is blatent projection on the part of the dumbfucks like you who actually, literally have no facts to support your deranged anti-science, reality-denying position, just makes it even more hilarious.

The Royals win.

LOLOLOLOLOL.....

UK science communiqué on climate change
The Royal Society
Downloads
21 July 2015

* Statement - PDF, 413.0kb

The Royal Society is one of 24 of the UK’s Professional and Learned Societies that have endorsed this communiqué on climate change. Together the organisations involved represent a diverse range of expertise from across the sciences, social sciences, arts, humanities, medicine and engineering.

The communiqué states that if we are to have a reasonable chance of limiting global warming in this century to 2°C relative to the pre-industrial period, we must transition to a zero-carbon world by early in the second half of the century. It highlights the risks associated with climate change, as well as the potential responses and opportunities of low-carbon and climate-resilient growth.

 

[flacaltenn]

Im laughing.
How many times have ENVIRONMENT forum members who are also part of the religion roll out the Royal Society to back their hoax? I'll tell you how many times.........about 4 billion.
Turns out, a top Royal Society professor claimed at their annual meeting that in a few years, there is a very good chance of the earth getting colder..........in fact, possibly a lot colder!!!
Cold sun rising - The Nation

That is just more fraudulent denier cult propaganda, with very little real basis in reality. Neither the 'professor' nor the paper presented to The Royal Society ever claimed that the world would get colder. The projected cooling from an extended solar minimum is far less than the global warming from the increased CO2 levels.

No, the sun isn't going to save us from global warming
A solar minimum would offset no more than a decade’s worth of human-caused global warming
The Guardian
Dana Nuccitelli
16 July 2015
(excerpts)
Even the grandest solar minimum would have a minor impact on global temperatures compared to the rapid warming stemming from human carbon pollution. Photograph: Solar Dynamics Observatory/Nasa

A number of scientific studies have asked the question, ‘if the sun were to enter another extended quiet phase (a grand solar minimum), how would that impact global surface temperatures?’. Every study agrees, it would cause no more than 0.3°C cooling, which would only be enough to temporarily offset about a decade’s worth of human-caused global warming.


The global mean temperature difference is shown for the time period 1900 to 2100 for the IPCC A2 emissions scenario. The red line shows predicted temperature change for the current level of solar activity, the blue line shows predicted temperature change for solar activity at the much lower level of the Maunder Minimum, and the black line shows observed temperatures through 2010. Adapted from Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010) by SkepticalScience.com

This ‘impending mini ice age’ myth is incredibly easy to debunk. In fact it just takes asking one simple question – if the sun is such a key driver of the Earth’s climate, then why has the entire planet (air, oceans, land, and ice) warmed rapidly over the past 60 years while solar activity has declined?

Annual global surface temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). Source: Skeptical Science

That simple question is sufficient on its own to debunk the notion that the sun is the main driver of global temperatures. Research has clearly shown, it’s carbon dioxide that’s the temperature’s main control knob.

Second, research has suggested that the solar minimum around the year 1650 played a relatively small role in the cool temperatures during the Little Ice Age. Instead, heightened volcanic activity (pumping ash into the atmosphere that blocks sunlight) and a drop in atmospheric carbon levels were the main contributors to the cooling during that time.

Third, the Little Ice Age wasn’t even that cold, globally. The following chart shows the most comprehensive global surface temperature reconstruction to date, from the PAGES 2k Consortium. In just the past few decades the planet has warmed more than it cooled during the entire Little Ice Age.

Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean surface temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman. 400 years of sunspot observations are inlaid, created by Robert Rohde.

There was significant regional cooling during the mini ice age, particularly in parts of Europe and North America, but globally it was indeed quite little.

Fourth, a grand solar minimum would be a temporary phase. Any cooling it caused would only last a few decades until the end of the event, at which point the increase in solar activity would contribute to global warming.

In summary, the difference between the Little Ice Age and current warming period comes down to volcanoes, carbon dioxide, and magnitude. The previous cool period was quite small, likely caused mostly by volcanic activity. And of course, humans weren’t pumping over 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year in the 17th century, as we are now.

The bottom line: even the grandest solar minimum would have a minor impact on global temperatures compared to the rapid warming stemming from human carbon pollution.

nobody cares about 1/2 a degree. Only the fringe OCD AGW k00ks get freaked by this. PS....I think your font needs to be a little bit bigger!!! And for those who are sorta new to the ENVIRONMENT forum, we have this forum member Rolling Thunder here. He drops into the forum every few months for a few weeks, posts up the same ghey links/photos/articles ( like the giant sun one above )..........and then disappears for months. We always know he's back from the tone of the posts........angry.............miserable.........and always, hysterical.

Your fraudulent moronic OP got completely debunked in post #10. Your demented denier cult myths and bogus propaganda get regularly debunked, especially if I'm around. You are an anti-science troll and you always post utter bullcrap and lies.

ahh the little climate denier got his feathers ruffled. Royal Society gave you a tummy ache, nice. Thanks for sharing your loser skills.

LOLOL.....the fraudulent OP got completely debunked but you are too brainwashed and insane to grasp that fact so you continue to make yourself look like an utter idiot....LOLOL...

Debunked?? By Dana Nutticelli?? The Cartoonist from skeptical science???

Not a single chart in his work that he didn't crayon himself..

 

[flacaltenn]

The OP got exactly the reaction he thought he'd get from deniers as yourself.

Scornful laughter? Really? That's what you figure he was going for?

Or was it the rapid debunking?

you have no facts to support your position.

LOLOLOL.....it is always so hilarious when ignorant dumbfucks like yourself say something like that, basically to the entire world scientific community, who almost unanimously affirm the reality and dangers of human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes. And of course, the fact that it is blatent projection on the part of the dumbfucks like you who actually, literally have no facts to support your deranged anti-science, reality-denying position, just makes it even more hilarious.

The Royals win.

LOLOLOLOLOL.....

UK science communiqué on climate change
The Royal Society
Downloads
21 July 2015

* Statement - PDF, 413.0kb

The Royal Society is one of 24 of the UK’s Professional and Learned Societies that have endorsed this communiqué on climate change. Together the organisations involved represent a diverse range of expertise from across the sciences, social sciences, arts, humanities, medicine and engineering.

The communiqué states that if we are to have a reasonable chance of limiting global warming in this century to 2°C relative to the pre-industrial period, we must transition to a zero-carbon world by early in the second half of the century. It highlights the risks associated with climate change, as well as the potential responses and opportunities of low-carbon and climate-resilient growth.

And what exactly HAPPENS at 2degC? Do they all agree on that as well??
How many Royal Society members are climate scientists and how many are psychologists??

 

[RollingThunder]

Im laughing.
How many times have ENVIRONMENT forum members who are also part of the religion roll out the Royal Society to back their hoax? I'll tell you how many times.........about 4 billion.
Turns out, a top Royal Society professor claimed at their annual meeting that in a few years, there is a very good chance of the earth getting colder..........in fact, possibly a lot colder!!!
Cold sun rising - The Nation

That is just more fraudulent denier cult propaganda, with very little real basis in reality. Neither the 'professor' nor the paper presented to The Royal Society ever claimed that the world would get colder. The projected cooling from an extended solar minimum is far less than the global warming from the increased CO2 levels.

No, the sun isn't going to save us from global warming
A solar minimum would offset no more than a decade’s worth of human-caused global warming
The Guardian
Dana Nuccitelli
16 July 2015
(excerpts)
Even the grandest solar minimum would have a minor impact on global temperatures compared to the rapid warming stemming from human carbon pollution. Photograph: Solar Dynamics Observatory/Nasa

A number of scientific studies have asked the question, ‘if the sun were to enter another extended quiet phase (a grand solar minimum), how would that impact global surface temperatures?’. Every study agrees, it would cause no more than 0.3°C cooling, which would only be enough to temporarily offset about a decade’s worth of human-caused global warming.


The global mean temperature difference is shown for the time period 1900 to 2100 for the IPCC A2 emissions scenario. The red line shows predicted temperature change for the current level of solar activity, the blue line shows predicted temperature change for solar activity at the much lower level of the Maunder Minimum, and the black line shows observed temperatures through 2010. Adapted from Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010) by SkepticalScience.com

This ‘impending mini ice age’ myth is incredibly easy to debunk. In fact it just takes asking one simple question – if the sun is such a key driver of the Earth’s climate, then why has the entire planet (air, oceans, land, and ice) warmed rapidly over the past 60 years while solar activity has declined?

Annual global surface temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). Source: Skeptical Science

That simple question is sufficient on its own to debunk the notion that the sun is the main driver of global temperatures. Research has clearly shown, it’s carbon dioxide that’s the temperature’s main control knob.

Second, research has suggested that the solar minimum around the year 1650 played a relatively small role in the cool temperatures during the Little Ice Age. Instead, heightened volcanic activity (pumping ash into the atmosphere that blocks sunlight) and a drop in atmospheric carbon levels were the main contributors to the cooling during that time.

Third, the Little Ice Age wasn’t even that cold, globally. The following chart shows the most comprehensive global surface temperature reconstruction to date, from the PAGES 2k Consortium. In just the past few decades the planet has warmed more than it cooled during the entire Little Ice Age.

Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean surface temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman. 400 years of sunspot observations are inlaid, created by Robert Rohde.

There was significant regional cooling during the mini ice age, particularly in parts of Europe and North America, but globally it was indeed quite little.

Fourth, a grand solar minimum would be a temporary phase. Any cooling it caused would only last a few decades until the end of the event, at which point the increase in solar activity would contribute to global warming.

In summary, the difference between the Little Ice Age and current warming period comes down to volcanoes, carbon dioxide, and magnitude. The previous cool period was quite small, likely caused mostly by volcanic activity. And of course, humans weren’t pumping over 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year in the 17th century, as we are now.

The bottom line: even the grandest solar minimum would have a minor impact on global temperatures compared to the rapid warming stemming from human carbon pollution.

nobody cares about 1/2 a degree. Only the fringe OCD AGW k00ks get freaked by this. PS....I think your font needs to be a little bit bigger!!! And for those who are sorta new to the ENVIRONMENT forum, we have this forum member Rolling Thunder here. He drops into the forum every few months for a few weeks, posts up the same ghey links/photos/articles ( like the giant sun one above )..........and then disappears for months. We always know he's back from the tone of the posts........angry.............miserable.........and always, hysterical.

Your fraudulent moronic OP got completely debunked in post #10. Your demented denier cult myths and bogus propaganda get regularly debunked, especially if I'm around. You are an anti-science troll and you always post utter bullcrap and lies.

ahh the little climate denier got his feathers ruffled. Royal Society gave you a tummy ache, nice. Thanks for sharing your loser skills.

LOLOL.....the fraudulent OP got completely debunked but you are too brainwashed and insane to grasp that fact so you continue to make yourself look like an utter idiot....LOLOL...

Debunked?? By Dana Nutticelli?? The Cartoonist from skeptical science??? Not a single chart in his work that he didn't crayon himself..

You're just revealing your own insanity, fecalhead, when you, an ignorant, moronic, anti-science reality denier and stooge for the fossil fuel industry, try to disparage REAL scientists, with actual credentials and education, who publish peer-reviewed scientific papers.

Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis.

Dana has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September, 2010. He also blogs at The Guardian, and is the author of Climatology versus Pseudoscience. He has published climate-related papers on various subjects, from the build-up of heat in the Earth's climate system to the expert consensus on human-caused global warming.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Im laughing.
How many times have ENVIRONMENT forum members who are also part of the religion roll out the Royal Society to back their hoax? I'll tell you how many times.........about 4 billion.
Turns out, a top Royal Society professor claimed at their annual meeting that in a few years, there is a very good chance of the earth getting colder..........in fact, possibly a lot colder!!!
Cold sun rising - The Nation

That is just more fraudulent denier cult propaganda, with very little real basis in reality. Neither the 'professor' nor the paper presented to The Royal Society ever claimed that the world would get colder. The projected cooling from an extended solar minimum is far less than the global warming from the increased CO2 levels.

No, the sun isn't going to save us from global warming
A solar minimum would offset no more than a decade’s worth of human-caused global warming
The Guardian
Dana Nuccitelli
16 July 2015
(excerpts)
Even the grandest solar minimum would have a minor impact on global temperatures compared to the rapid warming stemming from human carbon pollution. Photograph: Solar Dynamics Observatory/Nasa

A number of scientific studies have asked the question, ‘if the sun were to enter another extended quiet phase (a grand solar minimum), how would that impact global surface temperatures?’. Every study agrees, it would cause no more than 0.3°C cooling, which would only be enough to temporarily offset about a decade’s worth of human-caused global warming.


The global mean temperature difference is shown for the time period 1900 to 2100 for the IPCC A2 emissions scenario. The red line shows predicted temperature change for the current level of solar activity, the blue line shows predicted temperature change for solar activity at the much lower level of the Maunder Minimum, and the black line shows observed temperatures through 2010. Adapted from Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010) by SkepticalScience.com

This ‘impending mini ice age’ myth is incredibly easy to debunk. In fact it just takes asking one simple question – if the sun is such a key driver of the Earth’s climate, then why has the entire planet (air, oceans, land, and ice) warmed rapidly over the past 60 years while solar activity has declined?

Annual global surface temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). Source: Skeptical Science

That simple question is sufficient on its own to debunk the notion that the sun is the main driver of global temperatures. Research has clearly shown, it’s carbon dioxide that’s the temperature’s main control knob.

Second, research has suggested that the solar minimum around the year 1650 played a relatively small role in the cool temperatures during the Little Ice Age. Instead, heightened volcanic activity (pumping ash into the atmosphere that blocks sunlight) and a drop in atmospheric carbon levels were the main contributors to the cooling during that time.

Third, the Little Ice Age wasn’t even that cold, globally. The following chart shows the most comprehensive global surface temperature reconstruction to date, from the PAGES 2k Consortium. In just the past few decades the planet has warmed more than it cooled during the entire Little Ice Age.

Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean surface temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman. 400 years of sunspot observations are inlaid, created by Robert Rohde.

There was significant regional cooling during the mini ice age, particularly in parts of Europe and North America, but globally it was indeed quite little.

Fourth, a grand solar minimum would be a temporary phase. Any cooling it caused would only last a few decades until the end of the event, at which point the increase in solar activity would contribute to global warming.

In summary, the difference between the Little Ice Age and current warming period comes down to volcanoes, carbon dioxide, and magnitude. The previous cool period was quite small, likely caused mostly by volcanic activity. And of course, humans weren’t pumping over 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year in the 17th century, as we are now.

The bottom line: even the grandest solar minimum would have a minor impact on global temperatures compared to the rapid warming stemming from human carbon pollution.

nobody cares about 1/2 a degree. Only the fringe OCD AGW k00ks get freaked by this. PS....I think your font needs to be a little bit bigger!!! And for those who are sorta new to the ENVIRONMENT forum, we have this forum member Rolling Thunder here. He drops into the forum every few months for a few weeks, posts up the same ghey links/photos/articles ( like the giant sun one above )..........and then disappears for months. We always know he's back from the tone of the posts........angry.............miserable.........and always, hysterical.

Your fraudulent moronic OP got completely debunked in post #10. Your demented denier cult myths and bogus propaganda get regularly debunked, especially if I'm around. You are an anti-science troll and you always post utter bullcrap and lies.

ahh the little climate denier got his feathers ruffled. Royal Society gave you a tummy ache, nice. Thanks for sharing your loser skills.

LOLOL.....the fraudulent OP got completely debunked but you are too brainwashed and insane to grasp that fact so you continue to make yourself look like an utter idiot....LOLOL...

Debunked?? By Dana Nutticelli?? The Cartoonist from skeptical science??? Not a single chart in his work that he didn't crayon himself..

You're just revealing your own insanity, fecalhead, when you, an ignorant, moronic, anti-science reality denier and stooge for the fossil fuel industry, try to disparage REAL scientists, with actual credentials and education, who publish peer-reviewed scientific papers.

Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis.

Dana has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September, 2010. He also blogs at The Guardian, and is the author of Climatology versus Pseudoscience. He has published climate-related papers on various subjects, from the build-up of heat in the Earth's climate system to the expert consensus on human-caused global warming.

Nutter-cellie is a left wing hack that has no scientific credibility of any kind. His methods are shoddy and his work lacks any integrity. He and Cook are two peas in a pod, a rotten pod.

What do you call a scientist who makes up fraudulent credentials to peer review their own work?