CDZ The Little Ice Age Has Begun - What Should We Do?

[edthecynic]

This is exactly why they changed the name of their catastrophe to "climate change" instead of "global warming". Now they can say, "Look! The climate is changing! We need all of your money! Quick, before we all freeze to death!"

Why do you mindlessly parrot this GOP scripted lie spread by GOP hate radio????

NASA - What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change

To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"1

I am mindfully and tirelessly parroting the words out of the mouths of the people that perpetrated this money grabbing scheme. Climate has nothing, as in NO THING, to do with it:

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

"We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

NASA is a gov. funded organization that wants that money to keep on keeping on.
I believe the guy who is in charge of redistributing our money and resources to whomever wants it.

You are desperately trying to divert from the fact that there was NO name change, as you falsely claimed, because you are not honest enough to admit that you were had by your sources who deny global warming.

No name change now?
Why how intelectualy dishonest of you.

As the link you chose to ignore clearly shows, Global Warming AND Climate Change were used TOGETHER since at least 1975.
Why how morally dishonest of you!

 

[Wyatt earp]

This is exactly why they changed the name of their catastrophe to "climate change" instead of "global warming". Now they can say, "Look! The climate is changing! We need all of your money! Quick, before we all freeze to death!"

Why do you mindlessly parrot this GOP scripted lie spread by GOP hate radio????

NASA - What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change

To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"1

I am mindfully and tirelessly parroting the words out of the mouths of the people that perpetrated this money grabbing scheme. Climate has nothing, as in NO THING, to do with it:

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

"We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

NASA is a gov. funded organization that wants that money to keep on keeping on.
I believe the guy who is in charge of redistributing our money and resources to whomever wants it.

You are desperately trying to divert from the fact that there was NO name change, as you falsely claimed, because you are not honest enough to admit that you were had by your sources who deny global warming.

No name change now?
Why how intelectualy dishonest of you.

As the link you chose to ignore clearly shows, Global Warming AND Climate Change were used TOGETHER since at least 1975.
Why how morally dishonest of you!

Not in main stream..
Do you want me to post thousands and thousands of links from the 1970s till today on how it changed?


.

 

[edthecynic]

Why do you mindlessly parrot this GOP scripted lie spread by GOP hate radio????

NASA - What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change

To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"1

I am mindfully and tirelessly parroting the words out of the mouths of the people that perpetrated this money grabbing scheme. Climate has nothing, as in NO THING, to do with it:

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

"We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

NASA is a gov. funded organization that wants that money to keep on keeping on.
I believe the guy who is in charge of redistributing our money and resources to whomever wants it.

You are desperately trying to divert from the fact that there was NO name change, as you falsely claimed, because you are not honest enough to admit that you were had by your sources who deny global warming.

No name change now?
Why how intelectualy dishonest of you.

As the link you chose to ignore clearly shows, Global Warming AND Climate Change were used TOGETHER since at least 1975.
Why how morally dishonest of you!

Not in main stream..
Do you want me to post thousands and thousands of links from the 1970s till today on how it changed?

Yeah, post something from the 1970s that said global warming was changed to climate change.
In fact the term "climate change" predates the term "global warming" by nearly 2 decades, so if anything the change was from climate change to global warming!!!! The term ‘climate change’ has its origins back in 1956, the physicist Gilbert Plass published a study called "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change".

 

[Wyatt earp]

I am mindfully and tirelessly parroting the words out of the mouths of the people that perpetrated this money grabbing scheme. Climate has nothing, as in NO THING, to do with it:

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

"We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

NASA is a gov. funded organization that wants that money to keep on keeping on.
I believe the guy who is in charge of redistributing our money and resources to whomever wants it.

You are desperately trying to divert from the fact that there was NO name change, as you falsely claimed, because you are not honest enough to admit that you were had by your sources who deny global warming.

No name change now?
Why how intelectualy dishonest of you.

As the link you chose to ignore clearly shows, Global Warming AND Climate Change were used TOGETHER since at least 1975.
Why how morally dishonest of you!

Not in main stream..
Do you want me to post thousands and thousands of links from the 1970s till today on how it changed?

Yeah, post something from the 1970s that said global warming was changed to climate change.
In fact the term "climate change" predates the term "global warming" by nearly 2 decades, so if anything the change was from climate change to global warming!!!! The term ‘climate change’ has its origins back in 1956, the physicist Gilbert Plass published a study called "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change".

xxxxxxxxxxxx


So millions and millions of people world wide witnessed.. It go from ice age to global warming to climate change

And little ol' you says it didn't?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Btw the left has been fear mongering about climate change since the late 19th century when there was only like 100 cars in the United States


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Btw the left has been fear mongering about climate change since the late 19th century when there was only like 100 cars in the United States



.

In 1871, the New York Times was worried about climate change, just like they are now. Nothing has changed – intellectuals are just as stupid and misinformed as they always were.


http://query.nytimes.com/

 

[edthecynic]

You are desperately trying to divert from the fact that there was NO name change, as you falsely claimed, because you are not honest enough to admit that you were had by your sources who deny global warming.

No name change now?
Why how intelectualy dishonest of you.

As the link you chose to ignore clearly shows, Global Warming AND Climate Change were used TOGETHER since at least 1975.
Why how morally dishonest of you!

Not in main stream..
Do you want me to post thousands and thousands of links from the 1970s till today on how it changed?

Yeah, post something from the 1970s that said global warming was changed to climate change.
In fact the term "climate change" predates the term "global warming" by nearly 2 decades, so if anything the change was from climate change to global warming!!!! The term ‘climate change’ has its origins back in 1956, the physicist Gilbert Plass published a study called "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change".

So millions and millions of people world wide witnessed. It go from ice age to global warming to climate change
And little ol' you says it didn't?

No one witnessed any such thing, you've been had.

 

[Syriusly]

The Earth entered a little Ice Age phase beginning in 2014-2015, which will last into the 22nd century. The Earth has gone through many such phases; reduction in solar activity has led us to another.

So, how should we respond? Given that offshore oil supplies will be increasingly less accessible due to ice, we should build nuclear power plants as quickly as possible.


“The New Little Ice Age Has Started.” This is the unambiguous title of a new study from one of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions, the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg. “The average temperature around the globe will fall by about 1.5 C when we enter the deep cooling phase of the Little Ice Age, expected in the year 2060,” the study states. “The cooling phase will last for about 45-65 years, for four to six 11-year cycles of the Sun, after which on the Earth, at the beginning of the 22nd century, will begin the new, next quasi-bicentennial cycle of warming.”


Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at Pulkovo and the author of the study, has been predicting the arrival of another little ice age since 2003, based on his study of the behaviour of the Sun’s different cycles and the solar activity that then results. His model — informed by Earth’s 18 earlier little ice ages over the past 7,500 years, six of them in the last thousand years — led to his prediction more than a decade ago that the next little ice age would occur between 2012 and 2015. Unlike the global warming models of scientists, which were soon disproved by actual measurements, Abdussamatov’s models have been affirmed by actual events, including the rise of the oceans and the measurable irradiance sent earthward by the sun. This record of accuracy — which he has repeatedly demonstrated in studies between 2003 and now — leads him to now confidently state that in 2014–15, we began our entry into the 19th Little Ice Age....

Lawrence Solomon: Proof that a new ice age has already started is stronger than ever, and we couldn’t be less prepared

You know what- he might be correct. Or he might not be.

He is one scientist- with a theory.

Does any scientist agree with him? Have his papers been peer reviewed? Has his science been confirmed by other scientists.

Certainly we should take all warnings of climate change seriously and put it through rigorous scientific discussion.

Don't you agree?

 

[edthecynic]

In 1871, the New York Times was worried about climate change, just like they are now. Nothing has changed – intellectuals are just as stupid and misinformed as they always were.


http://query.nytimes.com/

Wow! You've just predated the term "climate change" to over 100 years before the term "global warming."
Thank you.

 

[edthecynic]

The Earth entered a little Ice Age phase beginning in 2014-2015, which will last into the 22nd century. The Earth has gone through many such phases; reduction in solar activity has led us to another.

So, how should we respond? Given that offshore oil supplies will be increasingly less accessible due to ice, we should build nuclear power plants as quickly as possible.


“The New Little Ice Age Has Started.” This is the unambiguous title of a new study from one of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions, the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg. “The average temperature around the globe will fall by about 1.5 C when we enter the deep cooling phase of the Little Ice Age, expected in the year 2060,” the study states. “The cooling phase will last for about 45-65 years, for four to six 11-year cycles of the Sun, after which on the Earth, at the beginning of the 22nd century, will begin the new, next quasi-bicentennial cycle of warming.”


Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at Pulkovo and the author of the study, has been predicting the arrival of another little ice age since 2003, based on his study of the behaviour of the Sun’s different cycles and the solar activity that then results. His model — informed by Earth’s 18 earlier little ice ages over the past 7,500 years, six of them in the last thousand years — led to his prediction more than a decade ago that the next little ice age would occur between 2012 and 2015. Unlike the global warming models of scientists, which were soon disproved by actual measurements, Abdussamatov’s models have been affirmed by actual events, including the rise of the oceans and the measurable irradiance sent earthward by the sun. This record of accuracy — which he has repeatedly demonstrated in studies between 2003 and now — leads him to now confidently state that in 2014–15, we began our entry into the 19th Little Ice Age....

Lawrence Solomon: Proof that a new ice age has already started is stronger than ever, and we couldn’t be less prepared

You know what- he might be correct. Or he might not be.

He is one scientist- with a theory.

Does any scientist agree with him? Have his papers been peer reviewed? Has his science been confirmed by other scientists.

Certainly we should take all warnings of climate change seriously and put it through rigorous scientific discussion.

Don't you agree?

Actually, it is a "she." And her paper has already been challenged by the scientific community.

http://phys.org/news/2015-07-mini-ice-age-hoopla-giant.html

This month there's been a hoopla about a mini ice age, and unfortunately it tells us more about failures of science communication than the climate. Such failures can maintain the illusion of doubt and uncertainty, even when there's a scientific consensus that the world is warming.

The story starts benignly with a peer-reviewed paper and a presentation in early July by Professor Valentina Zharkova, from Northumbria University, at Britain's National Astronomy Meeting.

The paper presents a model for the sun's magnetic field and sunspots, which predicts a 60% fall in sunspot numbers when extrapolated to the 2030s. Crucially, the paper makes no mention of climate.

The first failure of science communication is present in the Royal Astronomical Society press release from July 9. It says that "solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s" without clarifying that this "solar activity" refers to a fall in the number of sunspots, not a dramatic fall in the life-sustaining light emitted by the sun.

The press release also omits crucial details. It does say that the drop in sunspots may resemble the Maunder minimum, a 17th century lull in solar activity, and includes a link to the Wikipedia article on the subject. The press release also notes that the Maunder minimum coincided with a mini ice age.

But that mini ice age began before the Maunder minimum and may have had multiple causes, including volcanism.

Crucially, the press release doesn't say what the implications of a future Maunder minimum are for climate.

Filling in the gaps

How would a new Maunder minimum impact climate? It's an obvious question, and one that climate scientists have already answered. But many journalists didn't ask the experts, instead drawing their own conclusions.

snip/

As discussed previously, the impact of a new Maunder minimum on climate has beenstudied many times. There's 40% more CO2 in the air now than during the 17th century, and global temperature records are being smashed. A new Maunder minimum would slow climate change, but it is not enough to stop it.

snip/

Is there any quantitative basis for claims of a mini ice age? Zharkova and her colleagues have cited a 1997 article by Judith Lean, who showed the sun's brightness (quantified by solar irradiance) was 3 W per m2 less during the Maunder minimum than today. More recent studies, including those by Lean, find the solar irradiance varies less than was thought in 1997.

In plain English, the small change in sunlight reaching the Earth during a new Maunder minimum wouldn't be enough to reverse climate change. For the technically minded, even a 3 W per m2 change in irradiance corresponds to a radiative forcing of just 0.5 W per m2 (because the Earth is a sphere and not a flat circle), which is less than the radiative forcing produced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

To be blunt: no mini ice age for us.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Earth entered a little Ice Age phase beginning in 2014-2015, which will last into the 22nd century. The Earth has gone through many such phases; reduction in solar activity has led us to another.

So, how should we respond? Given that offshore oil supplies will be increasingly less accessible due to ice, we should build nuclear power plants as quickly as possible.


“The New Little Ice Age Has Started.” This is the unambiguous title of a new study from one of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions, the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg. “The average temperature around the globe will fall by about 1.5 C when we enter the deep cooling phase of the Little Ice Age, expected in the year 2060,” the study states. “The cooling phase will last for about 45-65 years, for four to six 11-year cycles of the Sun, after which on the Earth, at the beginning of the 22nd century, will begin the new, next quasi-bicentennial cycle of warming.”


Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at Pulkovo and the author of the study, has been predicting the arrival of another little ice age since 2003, based on his study of the behaviour of the Sun’s different cycles and the solar activity that then results. His model — informed by Earth’s 18 earlier little ice ages over the past 7,500 years, six of them in the last thousand years — led to his prediction more than a decade ago that the next little ice age would occur between 2012 and 2015. Unlike the global warming models of scientists, which were soon disproved by actual measurements, Abdussamatov’s models have been affirmed by actual events, including the rise of the oceans and the measurable irradiance sent earthward by the sun. This record of accuracy — which he has repeatedly demonstrated in studies between 2003 and now — leads him to now confidently state that in 2014–15, we began our entry into the 19th Little Ice Age....

Lawrence Solomon: Proof that a new ice age has already started is stronger than ever, and we couldn’t be less prepared

It's possible. I actually said a while back that we should be going into a cooling phase. The problem is that we will increase the temperatures with man made global warming countering the natural cooling. The problem here is that we don't know the consequences of these actions.

Take for example a recession. There probably should have been a recession somewhere in the first term of Bush's presidency, however this didn't happen and then next one that came along was much worse.

What will happen if we keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere? It's okay now, but we don't know the impact later. One impact of pumping CO2 into the air is that the Oceans are picking it up. What happens when they can't or won't take it any longer? We might have a catastrophic event where everything changes too quickly for us to deal with.

 

[flacaltenn]

We can begin by noting that Energy Probe and Lawrence Foster are in fossil fuel pockets.

Go to the site and read.

There is no denial from US govt that this theory of a coming Solar Minimum has merit. Trying to cast aspersions on sourcing won't get you anywhere. There are signatures in the 11/22 year solar cycles that MATCH the signatures going into the LAST Grand Solar Minimum back at the beginning of the 18th century.. NONE of this is in dispute.

Everyone is just waiting to see if the pattern CONTINUES to match. We'll know in 3 or 5 years. But already the probability of this event is above 50%.

 

[flacaltenn]

The Earth entered a little Ice Age phase beginning in 2014-2015, which will last into the 22nd century. The Earth has gone through many such phases; reduction in solar activity has led us to another.

So, how should we respond? Given that offshore oil supplies will be increasingly less accessible due to ice, we should build nuclear power plants as quickly as possible.


“The New Little Ice Age Has Started.” This is the unambiguous title of a new study from one of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions, the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg. “The average temperature around the globe will fall by about 1.5 C when we enter the deep cooling phase of the Little Ice Age, expected in the year 2060,” the study states. “The cooling phase will last for about 45-65 years, for four to six 11-year cycles of the Sun, after which on the Earth, at the beginning of the 22nd century, will begin the new, next quasi-bicentennial cycle of warming.”


Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at Pulkovo and the author of the study, has been predicting the arrival of another little ice age since 2003, based on his study of the behaviour of the Sun’s different cycles and the solar activity that then results. His model — informed by Earth’s 18 earlier little ice ages over the past 7,500 years, six of them in the last thousand years — led to his prediction more than a decade ago that the next little ice age would occur between 2012 and 2015. Unlike the global warming models of scientists, which were soon disproved by actual measurements, Abdussamatov’s models have been affirmed by actual events, including the rise of the oceans and the measurable irradiance sent earthward by the sun. This record of accuracy — which he has repeatedly demonstrated in studies between 2003 and now — leads him to now confidently state that in 2014–15, we began our entry into the 19th Little Ice Age....

Lawrence Solomon: Proof that a new ice age has already started is stronger than ever, and we couldn’t be less prepared

You know what- he might be correct. Or he might not be.

He is one scientist- with a theory.

Does any scientist agree with him? Have his papers been peer reviewed? Has his science been confirmed by other scientists.

Certainly we should take all warnings of climate change seriously and put it through rigorous scientific discussion.

Don't you agree?

Actually, it is a "she." And her paper has already been challenged by the scientific community.

http://phys.org/news/2015-07-mini-ice-age-hoopla-giant.html

This month there's been a hoopla about a mini ice age, and unfortunately it tells us more about failures of science communication than the climate. Such failures can maintain the illusion of doubt and uncertainty, even when there's a scientific consensus that the world is warming.

The story starts benignly with a peer-reviewed paper and a presentation in early July by Professor Valentina Zharkova, from Northumbria University, at Britain's National Astronomy Meeting.

The paper presents a model for the sun's magnetic field and sunspots, which predicts a 60% fall in sunspot numbers when extrapolated to the 2030s. Crucially, the paper makes no mention of climate.

The first failure of science communication is present in the Royal Astronomical Society press release from July 9. It says that "solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s" without clarifying that this "solar activity" refers to a fall in the number of sunspots, not a dramatic fall in the life-sustaining light emitted by the sun.

The press release also omits crucial details. It does say that the drop in sunspots may resemble the Maunder minimum, a 17th century lull in solar activity, and includes a link to the Wikipedia article on the subject. The press release also notes that the Maunder minimum coincided with a mini ice age.

But that mini ice age began before the Maunder minimum and may have had multiple causes, including volcanism.

Crucially, the press release doesn't say what the implications of a future Maunder minimum are for climate.

Filling in the gaps

How would a new Maunder minimum impact climate? It's an obvious question, and one that climate scientists have already answered. But many journalists didn't ask the experts, instead drawing their own conclusions.

snip/

As discussed previously, the impact of a new Maunder minimum on climate has beenstudied many times. There's 40% more CO2 in the air now than during the 17th century, and global temperature records are being smashed. A new Maunder minimum would slow climate change, but it is not enough to stop it.

snip/

Is there any quantitative basis for claims of a mini ice age? Zharkova and her colleagues have cited a 1997 article by Judith Lean, who showed the sun's brightness (quantified by solar irradiance) was 3 W per m2 less during the Maunder minimum than today. More recent studies, including those by Lean, find the solar irradiance varies less than was thought in 1997.

In plain English, the small change in sunlight reaching the Earth during a new Maunder minimum wouldn't be enough to reverse climate change. For the technically minded, even a 3 W per m2 change in irradiance corresponds to a radiative forcing of just 0.5 W per m2 (because the Earth is a sphere and not a flat circle), which is less than the radiative forcing produced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

To be blunt: no mini ice age for us.

That's from over a year ago. Since, it's become a mainstream concern..
Really don't think the UK Met Office is a bunch of whackos like the primadonnas at your link claim....

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Daily Mail Online

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.
However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’
These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.
‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

All those little petty "digs" that you feast on about the new solar minimum not "offsetting the amount of GW due to GWarming are pissing the wind. Because the effects from a Solar Minimum will be felt STRONGLY in the Northern Hemisphere and WILL offset a MAJORITY of the GWarming in YOUR lifetime.

But more importantly, it will CHANGE weather patterns and make winters BRUTAL for a couple decades if this theory pans out..

 

[flacaltenn]

For the OP question -- what SHOULD we do? We better damn well assure that our energy systems are capable of EXPANDED generation and are 24/7/365 reliable. You do NOT get there with supplements like wind/solar. We also better make certain that people in difficult winter areas have access to emergency services and shelter in the wintertime.

 

[Syriusly]

We can begin by noting that Energy Probe and Lawrence Foster are in fossil fuel pockets.

Go to the site and read.

There is no denial from US govt that this theory of a coming Solar Minimum has merit.

That really means nothing you realize.

Has the U.S. government looked at, or examined the claims? If not, then the lack of denial is just lack of notice. And I believe the U.S. government is on record supporting the theory of human caused climate change- is that relevant to you?

There might be merit to this theory- I would love to see the anti-AGWers be as in favor of rigorous scientific debate when it comes to all possible claims of climate change. Let the best science win out.

 

[flacaltenn]

We can begin by noting that Energy Probe and Lawrence Foster are in fossil fuel pockets.

Go to the site and read.

There is no denial from US govt that this theory of a coming Solar Minimum has merit.

That really means nothing you realize.

Has the U.S. government looked at, or examined the claims? If not, then the lack of denial is just lack of notice. And I believe the U.S. government is on record supporting the theory of human caused climate change- is that relevant to you?

There might be merit to this theory- I would love to see the anti-AGWers be as in favor of rigorous scientific debate when it comes to all possible claims of climate change. Let the best science win out.

You didn't read the link I provided did you? There is no denial that this pattern seems to match the one that took us into the Little Ice Age in 1700 or so.. Only 3 to 5 years to confirm that and we just sit and wait. But probabilities like that 90% figure (which may be a bit high) from the UK Met. Office should tell you that this is not a fringe theory..

 

[Syriusly]

For the OP question -- what SHOULD we do? We better damn well assure that our energy systems are capable of EXPANDED generation and are 24/7/365 reliable. You do NOT get there with supplements like wind/solar. We also better make certain that people in difficult winter areas have access to emergency services and shelter in the wintertime.

Lets take this the other way- I actually think that considering potential catastrophes is a good thing.

What if Human Caused Global Warming is true? What should we do? You realize that our current approach of just denying Global Warming is not preparing for it?

Why would you advocate preparing for the "Little Ice Age" based upon one paper- one scientist- but not support preparing for the consequences of human caused global warming?

 

[flacaltenn]

For the OP question -- what SHOULD we do? We better damn well assure that our energy systems are capable of EXPANDED generation and are 24/7/365 reliable. You do NOT get there with supplements like wind/solar. We also better make certain that people in difficult winter areas have access to emergency services and shelter in the wintertime.

Lets take this the other way- I actually think that considering potential catastrophes is a good thing.

What if Human Caused Global Warming is true? What should we do? You realize that our current approach of just denying Global Warming is not preparing for it?

Why would you advocate preparing for the "Little Ice Age" based upon one paper- one scientist- but not support preparing for the consequences of human caused global warming?

Because a "Little Ice Age" is not an apocalypse and it doesn't involve the $TRILLS of dollars that we hand to 3rd world countries as "guilt money" for our CO2 sins. Not a lot required to prepare for that other than what I listed.

If we wanted to cut our CO2 emissions by a full 1/3 in this country, we could do that in less than 10 years with 3rd and 4th gen nuclear generators. But the left is MORE SCARED of nuclear power than apparently, they are of GWarming.

 

[edthecynic]

The Earth entered a little Ice Age phase beginning in 2014-2015, which will last into the 22nd century. The Earth has gone through many such phases; reduction in solar activity has led us to another.

So, how should we respond? Given that offshore oil supplies will be increasingly less accessible due to ice, we should build nuclear power plants as quickly as possible.


“The New Little Ice Age Has Started.” This is the unambiguous title of a new study from one of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions, the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg. “The average temperature around the globe will fall by about 1.5 C when we enter the deep cooling phase of the Little Ice Age, expected in the year 2060,” the study states. “The cooling phase will last for about 45-65 years, for four to six 11-year cycles of the Sun, after which on the Earth, at the beginning of the 22nd century, will begin the new, next quasi-bicentennial cycle of warming.”


Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at Pulkovo and the author of the study, has been predicting the arrival of another little ice age since 2003, based on his study of the behaviour of the Sun’s different cycles and the solar activity that then results. His model — informed by Earth’s 18 earlier little ice ages over the past 7,500 years, six of them in the last thousand years — led to his prediction more than a decade ago that the next little ice age would occur between 2012 and 2015. Unlike the global warming models of scientists, which were soon disproved by actual measurements, Abdussamatov’s models have been affirmed by actual events, including the rise of the oceans and the measurable irradiance sent earthward by the sun. This record of accuracy — which he has repeatedly demonstrated in studies between 2003 and now — leads him to now confidently state that in 2014–15, we began our entry into the 19th Little Ice Age....

Lawrence Solomon: Proof that a new ice age has already started is stronger than ever, and we couldn’t be less prepared

You know what- he might be correct. Or he might not be.

He is one scientist- with a theory.

Does any scientist agree with him? Have his papers been peer reviewed? Has his science been confirmed by other scientists.

Certainly we should take all warnings of climate change seriously and put it through rigorous scientific discussion.

Don't you agree?

Actually, it is a "she." And her paper has already been challenged by the scientific community.

http://phys.org/news/2015-07-mini-ice-age-hoopla-giant.html

This month there's been a hoopla about a mini ice age, and unfortunately it tells us more about failures of science communication than the climate. Such failures can maintain the illusion of doubt and uncertainty, even when there's a scientific consensus that the world is warming.

The story starts benignly with a peer-reviewed paper and a presentation in early July by Professor Valentina Zharkova, from Northumbria University, at Britain's National Astronomy Meeting.

The paper presents a model for the sun's magnetic field and sunspots, which predicts a 60% fall in sunspot numbers when extrapolated to the 2030s. Crucially, the paper makes no mention of climate.

The first failure of science communication is present in the Royal Astronomical Society press release from July 9. It says that "solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s" without clarifying that this "solar activity" refers to a fall in the number of sunspots, not a dramatic fall in the life-sustaining light emitted by the sun.

The press release also omits crucial details. It does say that the drop in sunspots may resemble the Maunder minimum, a 17th century lull in solar activity, and includes a link to the Wikipedia article on the subject. The press release also notes that the Maunder minimum coincided with a mini ice age.

But that mini ice age began before the Maunder minimum and may have had multiple causes, including volcanism.

Crucially, the press release doesn't say what the implications of a future Maunder minimum are for climate.

Filling in the gaps

How would a new Maunder minimum impact climate? It's an obvious question, and one that climate scientists have already answered. But many journalists didn't ask the experts, instead drawing their own conclusions.

snip/

As discussed previously, the impact of a new Maunder minimum on climate has beenstudied many times. There's 40% more CO2 in the air now than during the 17th century, and global temperature records are being smashed. A new Maunder minimum would slow climate change, but it is not enough to stop it.

snip/

Is there any quantitative basis for claims of a mini ice age? Zharkova and her colleagues have cited a 1997 article by Judith Lean, who showed the sun's brightness (quantified by solar irradiance) was 3 W per m2 less during the Maunder minimum than today. More recent studies, including those by Lean, find the solar irradiance varies less than was thought in 1997.

In plain English, the small change in sunlight reaching the Earth during a new Maunder minimum wouldn't be enough to reverse climate change. For the technically minded, even a 3 W per m2 change in irradiance corresponds to a radiative forcing of just 0.5 W per m2 (because the Earth is a sphere and not a flat circle), which is less than the radiative forcing produced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

To be blunt: no mini ice age for us.

That's from over a year ago. Since, it's become a mainstream concern..
Really don't think the UK Met Office is a bunch of whackos like the primadonnas at your link claim....

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Daily Mail Online

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.
However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’
These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.
‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

All those little petty "digs" that you feast on about the new solar minimum not "offsetting the amount of GW due to GWarming are pissing the wind. Because the effects from a Solar Minimum will be felt STRONGLY in the Northern Hemisphere and WILL offset a MAJORITY of the GWarming in YOUR lifetime.

But more importantly, it will CHANGE weather patterns and make winters BRUTAL for a couple decades if this theory pans out..

The last 3 solar cycles have been declining and yet we are still getting warmer. It is hardly likely that cycles 25, 26, and 27 will do anything more than just slow down the continuing warming trend. But just think what will happen when the solar cycles are no longer fighting global warming but instead adding to it!!!

 

[JoeMoma]

The Earth entered a little Ice Age phase beginning in 2014-2015, which will last into the 22nd century.

And yet 2014 and 2015 were the 2 warmest years in the history of direct instrument measurement!!!

The article says beginning. We are at the beginning of a decades long cooling cycle based on solar activity. Because: Science.

I love it, a decades long COOLING cycle that begins with record WARMTH!

Isn't that the way a cycle works. I have no idea if the theory given by the OP is right or not, but it does make sense that a cooling cycle would start as a warming cycle ends.