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

[Picaro]

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!"

Al Gore is making a massive pile of cash out of it as we speak. It's okay to make up stupid crap if a Democrat makes zillions off of a scam.

 

[Picaro]

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.

Bingo. Of course they won't be touching Al Gore's, Soro's, Obama's, or Clinton's wealth, just you peasants' wealth, what's left of it.

 

[Picaro]

Somebody brought up 'peer review'; forget that, few papers are ever actually reviewed by anybody, and of those maybe 35% end up being proven to have been truthful.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

We should have been in a cooling cycle the last 3 eleven year sun cycles if the OP was valid. Instead we are setting record warm global temps the last 3 years in a row and probably set a new one this year.

 

[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".

Nope you are trying to revise history so you and the AGW culture don't look stupid ..


So what is this a world wide conspiracy... That everyone makes fun of your ilk for continuing to change the name?

.

 

[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".

Nope you are trying to revise history so you and the AGW culture don't look stupid ..
So what is this a world wide conspiracy... That everyone makes fun of your ilk for continuing to change the name?

Projection.

 

[boedicca]

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!

Yes, very warm this winter indeed. Check your premises, bub.

 

[boedicca]

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.

Of course it's been challenged by the scientific community that has been Bought And Paid For by Big Government Authoritarians who see "Global Warming" as their next big Tax Source.

 

[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..

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!!!

First of all -- Sunspot numbers are a poor proxy for actual Solar irradiance. ALL of that difference ANNUALIZED is probably less than a couple Watts/m2. But the entire contribution from GW in your lifetime is only 3 or 4 Watts/m2. You'll feel it. The Sunspot count is a PRELUDE to actual reduction in solar output..

And if it HAPPENS, which is increasingly more likely every month, it will 70 to 90 YEARS before the immediate "forcing" wears off. And the Climate will linger and recover over the 100 years that follows that because of delays and thermodynamic storage. So -- IF GWarming "comes back" it will be the same cycle time as from the Dalton Minimum to now..

Puts a new perspective on the 1degC rise in your lifetime.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

We should have been in a cooling cycle the last 3 eleven year sun cycles if the OP was valid. Instead we are setting record warm global temps the last 3 years in a row and probably set a new one this year.

There is no immediate reaction to forcings of the climate. Doesn't matter whether whether the forcing comes from CO2 or the sun. Time delays and storage make a system THIS large respond in ways where the Temperature "output" curve is not expected to immediately match the input.

And like I said, sunspots are indicator of solar activity, but do not account for BASELINE changes in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI).. You need to look at the resultant TSI to determine how the actual solar forcing is changing with the sun spot activity.

 

[edthecynic]

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!

Yes, very warm this winter indeed. Check your premises, bub.

Winter just started a few days ago.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

We should have been in a cooling cycle the last 3 eleven year sun cycles if the OP was valid. Instead we are setting record warm global temps the last 3 years in a row and probably set a new one this year.

There is no immediate reaction to forcings of the climate. Doesn't matter whether whether the forcing comes from CO2 or the sun. Time delays and storage make a system THIS large respond in ways where the Temperature "output" curve is not expected to immediately match the input.

And like I said, sunspots are indicator of solar activity, but do not account for BASELINE changes in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI).. You need to look at the resultant TSI to determine how the actual solar forcing is changing with the sun spot activity.

TSI peaked in 1958 and its cycle has been steadily declining ever since while global temperatures have trended higher over the same period. Again global warming trumps TSI.

LISIRD - Historical Total Solar Irradiance

 

[Manonthestreet]

I think the first thing ya do is figure out who to blame that has lots of money and then declare a planetary emergency.....Who you blame will frame your science

 

[Wyatt earp]

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".

Nope you are trying to revise history so you and the AGW culture don't look stupid ..
So what is this a world wide conspiracy... That everyone makes fun of your ilk for continuing to change the name?

Projection.

Try denial on your part




. Expert Says Arctic Ocean Will Soon Be an Open Sea -
Catastrophic Shifts in Climate Feared if Change Occurs; Other Specialists See No Thinning of Polar Ice Cap, NY Times, 1969
By WALTER SULLIVAN February 20, 1969
Col. Bernt Balchen, polar explorer and flier, is circulating a paper among polar specialists proposing that theArctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two.


CHANGE IN CLIMATE KILLING PARK TREES; NY Times, 1919

There Has Been a Decided Decrease in Rainfall and Humidity Here in Five Years.HAVOC IN CENTRAL PARK Record Cold Killed 4,000, but Poor Soil Is Chief Cause of Loss–Suggestions for Restoration.
The New York Times, November 9, 1919
New York’s climate has changed considerably in the last twenty years, and that is one of the reasons for thewholesale death of trees in Central Park, according to Charles Lathrop Pack, President of the American Forestry Association, who has written in the current issue of American Forestry an extended review of the causes of tree failure in Central Park



SCIENTISTS AGREE WORLD IS COLDER;
But Climate Experts Meeting Here Fail to Agree on Reasons for Change, NY Times, 1961
By WALTER SULLIVAN January 30, 1961
After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder



Experts Fear Great Peril If SST Fumes Cool Earth, NY Times, 1975
By WALTER SULLIVAN December 21, 1975,
A federally sponsored inquiry into the effects of possible climate changes caused by heavy supersonic traffic in the stratosphere has concluded that even a slight cooling could cost the world from $200 billionto 500 times that much in damage done to agriculture, public health and other effects.


Winters Since ‘40 Found Colder In Studies by Weather Bureau;Data Indicate,a Reversal of a Warming TrendThat Began in 1888, NY Times, 1961

By WALTER SULLIVAN. January 25, 1961
Winters throughout the world have been getting steadily colder since 1940, according to a study carried out by the United States Weather Bureau.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

We should have been in a cooling cycle the last 3 eleven year sun cycles if the OP was valid. Instead we are setting record warm global temps the last 3 years in a row and probably set a new one this year.

Ooooohhh 3 years in a row fascinating.. If the earth was only 150 years old.


.

 

[Polk]

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.

You realize that solar activity isn't the only determinate of global temperatures, right?

 

[boedicca]

I think the first thing ya do is figure out who to blame that has lots of money and then declare a planetary emergency.....Who you blame will frame your science

Clearly, what is needed here is for the UN and EU to tax richer countries in order to funnel money to bureaucrats in NYC and Brussels.

 

[boedicca]

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.

You realize that solar activity isn't the only determinate of global temperatures, right?

It's a major one, bub.

 

[Polk]

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.

You realize that solar activity isn't the only determinate of global temperatures, right?

It's a major one, bub.

And yet temperatures have continued to rise during a period when changes in solar activity should have been causing them to decline. If solar activity is a "major determinate," that means a minor one is way out of wack to change the overall environment that much.

 

[boedicca]

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.

You realize that solar activity isn't the only determinate of global temperatures, right?

It's a major one, bub.

And yet temperatures have continued to rise during a period when changes in solar activity should have been causing them to decline. If solar activity is a "major determinate," that means a minor one is way out of wack to change the overall environment that much.

I suggest you take a look at temperature records that go back a bit longer than a few years;

Two hundred years ago, the Earth was in a Little Ice Age. During the Roman era, it was in a Warming period. AGW had nothing to do with these changes. The Sun and volcanoes did.