Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
We get ten or twenty years of cooling and shortened growing seasons and a whole lot of people will starve to death. Not sure that is a good way to go as most older folk would be the ones dying.. Most nations relying on solar and wind are going to have major problems the next 30 years and they will most certainly have very high death rates.Thanks BillyBob.
That is odd about the late season snow in Colorado. The South is scorching.
There's a number of reasons I'm kinda hoping for a significant event.
1). It's just too damn hot where I am.
2). I'm of the opinion that the herd needs thinning. And a significant cool down would probably thin the herd exactly as needed.
That "Perturbation" killed about 65% of human life on earth..Compared to the changes in the proper ice ages, the so-called Little Ice Age (LIA) is a very short-lived and puny climate and social perturbation.
That "Perturbation" killed about 65% of human life on earth..Compared to the changes in the proper ice ages, the so-called Little Ice Age (LIA) is a very short-lived and puny climate and social perturbation.
I like how these liars try to minimize the danger that is coming... I just shake my head in disbelief at the twisting and lying that you and SKS are promoting..
The most important takeaway point is that the scientific research is clear – were one to occur, a grand solar minimum would temporarily reduce global temperatures by less than 0.3°C, while humans are already causing 0.2°C warming per decade.
For each type of year – La Niña, El Niño, and neutral – the global surface warming trend between 1964 and 2017 is 0.17–0.18°C per decade, which is consistent with climate model predictions.
The new study addresses this problem by instead blending the modeled air temperatures over land with the modeled sea surface temperatures to allow for an apples-to-apples comparison. The authors also identified another challenging issue for these model-data comparisons in the Arctic. Over sea ice, surface air temperature measurements are used, but for open ocean, sea surface temperatures are used. As co-author Michael Mann notes, as Arctic sea ice continues to melt away, this is another factor that accurate model-data comparisons must account for.
Dana Nuttercellie and Michael Mann are not scientists, they are political whores.... Just say'in.. And the Guardian is a One World Globalist/Socialist piece of crapTwo men with alleged science education but exposed repeatedly as poor science explainers. Guardian sucks as they are an industry leader in posting misleading climate claims, it seems to be their preferred method.
I wish people would at least attempt to get the terminology right. We are currently in an "ice age" Ice age simply means that there is ice at one or both poles. What is regularly referred to as "ice ages" are in fact glaciations.Here's an argument that seems to present evidence that no ice-age is imminent.....and why...
I guess there's ammunition for every side of this debate?
Billy Bob, what's your take on the article below?
All below is taken from the link.....
The 'imminent mini ice age' myth is back, and it's still wrong
The 'imminent mini ice age' myth is back, and it's still wrong | Dana Nuccitelli
Roughly every two years we’re treated to headlines repeating the myth that Earth is headed for an imminent “mini ice age.” It happened in 2013, 2015, and again just recently at the tail end of 2017.
This time around, the myth appears to have been sparked by a Sky News interview with Northumbria University mathematics professor Valentina Zharkova. The story was quickly echoed by the Daily Mail, International Business Times, Sputnik News, Metro, Tru News, and others. Zharkova was also behind the ‘mini ice age’ stories in 2015, based on her research predicting that the sun will soon enter a quiet phase.
The most important takeaway point is that the scientific research is clear – were one to occur, a grand solar minimum would temporarily reduce global temperatures by less than 0.3°C, while humans are already causing 0.2°C warming per decade.
Facebook Twitter
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. Illustration: Adapted from Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010) in Geophysical Research Letters by SkepticalScience.com
So the sun could only offset at most 15 years’ worth of human-caused global warming, and once its quiet phase ended, the sun would then help accelerate global warming once again.
The ‘mini ice age’ misnomer
The myth ultimately stems from a period climate scientists have coined “The Little Ice Age” (LIA). This was a modestly cool period running from about the year 1300 to 1850. It was particularly cold in the UK, where the River Thames sometimes froze over, and ‘frost fairs’ were held.
A team led by University of Reading physicist and solar expert Mike Lockwood wrote a paper reviewing the science behind frost fairs, sunspots, and the LIA. It included the figure below showing northern hemisphere temperatures along with sunspot number and the level of volcanic particles in the atmosphere over the past millennium:
Facebook Twitter
Sunspot number, northern hemisphere temperatures, and volcanic aerosol optical depth (AOD) around the time of the Little Ice Age. Illustration: Lockwood et al. (2017), News & Reviews in Astronomy & Geophysics
During full blown ice ages, temperatures have generally been 4–8°C colder than in modern times. As this figure shows, during the LIA, temperatures were at most only about 0.5°C cooler than the early 20th century. Thus, Lockwood calls the Little Ice Age “a total misnomer.” As the authors put it:
Compared to the changes in the proper ice ages, the so-called Little Ice Age (LIA) is a very short-lived and puny climate and social perturbation.
For comparison, temperatures have risen by a full 1°C over the past 120 years, and 0.7°C over just the past 40 years.
The minimal solar minima influence on the climate
The Maunder Minimum was a period of quiet solar activity between about 1645 and 1715. It’s often referred to interchangeably with ‘Little Ice Age,’ but the latter lasted centuries longer. In fact, three separate solar minima occurred during the LIA, which also included periods of relatively higher solar activity. Other factors like volcanic eruptions and human activities also contributed to the cool temperatures. In fact, a 2017 paper led by the University of Reading’s Mathew Owens concluded:
Climate model simulations suggest multiple factors, particularly volcanic activity, were crucial for causing the cooler temperatures in the northern hemisphere during the LIA. A reduction in total solar irradiance likely contributed to the LIA at a level comparable to changing land use [by humans].
Facebook Twitter
Simulated northern hemisphere temperature changes resulting from individual climate factors, as compared to the observed changes in the top panel. The bottom panel shows a simulation with no changes to climatological factors, to illustrate the level of natural variability in the climate. Illustration: Owens et al. (2017), Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate
Several studies have investigated the potential climate impact of a future grand solar minimum. In every case, they have concluded that such a quiet solar period would cause less than 0.3°C cooling, which as previously noted, would temporarily offset no more than a decade and a half’s worth of human-caused global warming. These model-based estimates are consistent with the amount of cooling that occurred during the solar minima in the LIA.
Is another grand solar minimum imminent?
Although it would have a relatively small impact on the climate, it’s still an interesting question to ask whether we’re headed for another quiet solar period. Zharkova thinks so. Her team created a model that tries to predict solar activity, and suggests another solar minimum will occur from 2020 to 2055. However, other solar scientists have criticized the model as being too simple, created based on just 35 years of data, and failing to accurately reproduce past solar activity.
Ilya Usoskin, head of the Oulu Cosmic Ray Station and Vice-Director of the ReSoLVE Center of Excellence in Research, published a critique of Zharkova’s solar model making those points. Most importantly, the model fails in reproducing past known solar activity because Zharkova’s team treats the sun as a simple, predictable system like a pendulum. In reality, the sun has more random and unpredictable (in scientific terms, “stochastic”) behavior:
For example, a perfect pendulum – if you saw a few cycles of the pendulum, you can predict its behavior. However, solar activity is known to be non-stationary process, which principally cannot be predicted (the prediction horizon for solar activity is known to be 10-15 years). Deterministic prediction cannot be made because of the essential stochastic component.
Just imagine a very turbulent flow of water in a river rapid, and you throw a small wooden stick into water and trace it. Then you do it second time and third time ... each time the stick will end up in very different positions after the same time period. Its movement is unpredictable because of the turbulent stochastic component. This is exactly the situation with solar activity.
Lockwood agrees that we don’t yet have a proven predictive theory of solar behavior. He has published research examining the range of possible solar evolutions based on past periods when the Sun was in a similar state to today, but as he puts it, “that is the best that I think we can do at the present time!”
Solar physicist Paul Charbonneau at the University of Montreal also concurred with Usoskin. He told me that while scientists are working to simulate solar activity, including using simplified models like Zharkova’s,
on the standards of contemporary dynamo models theirs is extremely simple —in fact borderlining simplistic ... To extrapolate such a model outside its calibration window, you need an extra, very strong hypothesis: that the physical systems underlying the magnetic field generation retain their coherence (Phase, amplitude, etc.). As my colleague Ilya Usoskin has already explained, this is very unlikely to be the case in the case of the solar activity cycle.
Why won’t this myth die?
Zharkova believes her solar model is correct, but at best it can only try to predict when the next quiet solar period will occur. Its influence on Earth’s climate is outside her expertise, and the peer-reviewed research is clear that it would be a minimal impact.
Zharkova disagrees – I contacted her, and she told me that she believes a grand solar minimum would have a much bigger cooling effect. However, she also referenced long-debunked myths about global warming on Mars and Jupiter, and made a comment about “the preachers of global warming.” She’s clearly passionate about her research, and has the credibility that comes with publishing peer-reviewed studies on solar activity. Perhaps these factors motivate journalists to write these frequent ‘mini ice age’ stories.
But Zharkova’s climate science beliefs are irrelevant. While she has created a model predicting an imminent period of quiet solar activity, other scientists have identified serious flaws in the model, and in any case, research has shown that another solar minimum would only have a small and temporary impact on Earth’s climate.
This should be a real wake up call to our dingbat alarmists... Lets take a look at the cooling the last time the sun took a siesta.
View attachment 265815
The LIA is where the Dalton Event took us as a planet.
My my my. What in the world will the Global Warming crowd do with all their defunct predictions?
I mean just anecdotally, in the 90s we did seem to have some warming in my little corner of the world....it's gone now. I don't think my observations are a one-off either.
Secondly and it my little occupation, I think about all the songs we have about snow from what we now consider unusual places and in unusual times. For example "Good King Wenceslas" features some part of the UK--presumably a city--in deep snow. That rarely happens anymore. And our own "Over the River and Through the Woods" really IS a Thanksgiving song, written at a time on the East Coast (early 1800s) when snow at Thanksgiving was not rare either.
Just think about going back to that time--increasing snow, ice and cold. Thanks algore. Thanks a lot
Here's an argument that seems to present evidence that no ice-age is imminent.....and why...
I guess there's ammunition for every side of this debate?
Billy Bob, what's your take on the article below?
All below is taken from the link.....
The 'imminent mini ice age' myth is back, and it's still wrong
The 'imminent mini ice age' myth is back, and it's still wrong | Dana Nuccitelli
Roughly every two years we’re treated to headlines repeating the myth that Earth is headed for an imminent “mini ice age.” It happened in 2013, 2015, and again just recently at the tail end of 2017.
This time around, the myth appears to have been sparked by a Sky News interview with Northumbria University mathematics professor Valentina Zharkova. The story was quickly echoed by the Daily Mail, International Business Times, Sputnik News, Metro, Tru News, and others. Zharkova was also behind the ‘mini ice age’ stories in 2015, based on her research predicting that the sun will soon enter a quiet phase.
The most important takeaway point is that the scientific research is clear – were one to occur, a grand solar minimum would temporarily reduce global temperatures by less than 0.3°C, while humans are already causing 0.2°C warming per decade.
Facebook Twitter
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. Illustration: Adapted from Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010) in Geophysical Research Letters by SkepticalScience.com
So the sun could only offset at most 15 years’ worth of human-caused global warming, and once its quiet phase ended, the sun would then help accelerate global warming once again.
The ‘mini ice age’ misnomer
The myth ultimately stems from a period climate scientists have coined “The Little Ice Age” (LIA). This was a modestly cool period running from about the year 1300 to 1850. It was particularly cold in the UK, where the River Thames sometimes froze over, and ‘frost fairs’ were held.
A team led by University of Reading physicist and solar expert Mike Lockwood wrote a paper reviewing the science behind frost fairs, sunspots, and the LIA. It included the figure below showing northern hemisphere temperatures along with sunspot number and the level of volcanic particles in the atmosphere over the past millennium:
Facebook Twitter
Sunspot number, northern hemisphere temperatures, and volcanic aerosol optical depth (AOD) around the time of the Little Ice Age. Illustration: Lockwood et al. (2017), News & Reviews in Astronomy & Geophysics
During full blown ice ages, temperatures have generally been 4–8°C colder than in modern times. As this figure shows, during the LIA, temperatures were at most only about 0.5°C cooler than the early 20th century. Thus, Lockwood calls the Little Ice Age “a total misnomer.” As the authors put it:
Compared to the changes in the proper ice ages, the so-called Little Ice Age (LIA) is a very short-lived and puny climate and social perturbation.
For comparison, temperatures have risen by a full 1°C over the past 120 years, and 0.7°C over just the past 40 years.
The minimal solar minima influence on the climate
The Maunder Minimum was a period of quiet solar activity between about 1645 and 1715. It’s often referred to interchangeably with ‘Little Ice Age,’ but the latter lasted centuries longer. In fact, three separate solar minima occurred during the LIA, which also included periods of relatively higher solar activity. Other factors like volcanic eruptions and human activities also contributed to the cool temperatures. In fact, a 2017 paper led by the University of Reading’s Mathew Owens concluded:
Climate model simulations suggest multiple factors, particularly volcanic activity, were crucial for causing the cooler temperatures in the northern hemisphere during the LIA. A reduction in total solar irradiance likely contributed to the LIA at a level comparable to changing land use [by humans].
Facebook Twitter
Simulated northern hemisphere temperature changes resulting from individual climate factors, as compared to the observed changes in the top panel. The bottom panel shows a simulation with no changes to climatological factors, to illustrate the level of natural variability in the climate. Illustration: Owens et al. (2017), Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate
Several studies have investigated the potential climate impact of a future grand solar minimum. In every case, they have concluded that such a quiet solar period would cause less than 0.3°C cooling, which as previously noted, would temporarily offset no more than a decade and a half’s worth of human-caused global warming. These model-based estimates are consistent with the amount of cooling that occurred during the solar minima in the LIA.
Is another grand solar minimum imminent?
Although it would have a relatively small impact on the climate, it’s still an interesting question to ask whether we’re headed for another quiet solar period. Zharkova thinks so. Her team created a model that tries to predict solar activity, and suggests another solar minimum will occur from 2020 to 2055. However, other solar scientists have criticized the model as being too simple, created based on just 35 years of data, and failing to accurately reproduce past solar activity.
Ilya Usoskin, head of the Oulu Cosmic Ray Station and Vice-Director of the ReSoLVE Center of Excellence in Research, published a critique of Zharkova’s solar model making those points. Most importantly, the model fails in reproducing past known solar activity because Zharkova’s team treats the sun as a simple, predictable system like a pendulum. In reality, the sun has more random and unpredictable (in scientific terms, “stochastic”) behavior:
For example, a perfect pendulum – if you saw a few cycles of the pendulum, you can predict its behavior. However, solar activity is known to be non-stationary process, which principally cannot be predicted (the prediction horizon for solar activity is known to be 10-15 years). Deterministic prediction cannot be made because of the essential stochastic component.
Just imagine a very turbulent flow of water in a river rapid, and you throw a small wooden stick into water and trace it. Then you do it second time and third time ... each time the stick will end up in very different positions after the same time period. Its movement is unpredictable because of the turbulent stochastic component. This is exactly the situation with solar activity.
Lockwood agrees that we don’t yet have a proven predictive theory of solar behavior. He has published research examining the range of possible solar evolutions based on past periods when the Sun was in a similar state to today, but as he puts it, “that is the best that I think we can do at the present time!”
Solar physicist Paul Charbonneau at the University of Montreal also concurred with Usoskin. He told me that while scientists are working to simulate solar activity, including using simplified models like Zharkova’s,
on the standards of contemporary dynamo models theirs is extremely simple —in fact borderlining simplistic ... To extrapolate such a model outside its calibration window, you need an extra, very strong hypothesis: that the physical systems underlying the magnetic field generation retain their coherence (Phase, amplitude, etc.). As my colleague Ilya Usoskin has already explained, this is very unlikely to be the case in the case of the solar activity cycle.
Why won’t this myth die?
Zharkova believes her solar model is correct, but at best it can only try to predict when the next quiet solar period will occur. Its influence on Earth’s climate is outside her expertise, and the peer-reviewed research is clear that it would be a minimal impact.
Zharkova disagrees – I contacted her, and she told me that she believes a grand solar minimum would have a much bigger cooling effect. However, she also referenced long-debunked myths about global warming on Mars and Jupiter, and made a comment about “the preachers of global warming.” She’s clearly passionate about her research, and has the credibility that comes with publishing peer-reviewed studies on solar activity. Perhaps these factors motivate journalists to write these frequent ‘mini ice age’ stories.
But Zharkova’s climate science beliefs are irrelevant. While she has created a model predicting an imminent period of quiet solar activity, other scientists have identified serious flaws in the model, and in any case, research has shown that another solar minimum would only have a small and temporary impact on Earth’s climate.
Only a stupid Moon Bat would deny that the energy output of the sun would not have a significant impact on the climate of the earth..
[Put up your credentials you lying scum bag...
The facts show cooling only your liar fabricators are telling us it is warming. Even the UEA is now showing the cooling...
Now even your own high priests of the church of AGW are saying it is cooling... Now who's the lying little bitch now?
If AGW is true then:
1. The Climate Scientists would not have to fabricate data like they have been caught doing and even admits that they do.
2. The predictions that the Environmental Wackos have been warning us about for decades would have come true.
For each type of year – La Niña, El Niño, and neutral – the global surface warming trend between 1964 and 2017 is 0.17–0.18°C per decade, which is consistent with climate model predictions.
About 15c per decade rate. which is the NATURAL rate of every warming period since the mid 1800's.
Dana Nuttercelli LIED to you, he is well known as a dishonest journalist who has been repeatedly exposed as a liar and disinfomationist on climate stuff.
Arctic Sea Ice is no longer melting away as there is a flat trend since 2006, so Mann and Danaare lying to you as well.
I think they're confusing Earth with Venus.
I think they're confusing Earth with Venus.
Speaking of Venus, Venus makes the denier "IT'S THE SUN!" theory look especially stupid.
Venus is the closest planet with an atmosphere. If the sun is warming, Venus should be warming strongly. It's not. So, the theory faceplants.
You stupid Moon Bats don't know anymore about Climate Science as you do Economics, History, Ethics, Biology or the Constitution.
[Put up your credentials you lying scum bag...
So how's the phony doctorate going? I forget, when did you pretend to start? Shouldn't you be pretending to be done by now?
The facts show cooling only your liar fabricators are telling us it is warming. Even the UEA is now showing the cooling...
Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ...
Now even your own high priests of the church of AGW are saying it is cooling... Now who's the lying little bitch now?
If you weren't a little bitch, you'd tell your cult masters "No, I refuse to lie for you!".
If AGW is true then:
1. The Climate Scientists would not have to fabricate data like they have been caught doing and even admits that they do.
All of the fraud has been on your side, and you just posted some of it. It's one reason that your cult is laughed at.
2. The predictions that the Environmental Wackos have been warning us about for decades would have come true.
No, since "environmental wackos" are totally different thing from scientists. The scientists have been correct about most everything, forcing you to exclusively quote "environmental wackos" instead.
So when is your Holy Ice Age getting here? Your know, the one that your Ice Age Cult has been saying "RealSoonNow" about for 40+ years. Given your cult's perfect record of failure, it's interesting that you still expect not to be laughed at.
For each type of year – La Niña, El Niño, and neutral – the global surface warming trend between 1964 and 2017 is 0.17–0.18°C per decade, which is consistent with climate model predictions.
So, the lesson we take is that reality has matched models closely. No wonder you're so upset. Your favorite talking point went down the toilet. But then, everyone familiar with the science was already aware of how good the models have been.
Climate model projections compared to observations
Of course, the success of the models is just icing on the cake. The directly measured data is fine proof of AGW theory on its own.
About 15c per decade rate. which is the NATURAL rate of every warming period since the mid 1800's.
Except those warming periods happened due to a warming sun. The sun has been cooling during this last warmup. Doesn't WUWT mention such basics to you?
Dana Nuttercelli LIED to you, he is well known as a dishonest journalist who has been repeatedly exposed as a liar and disinfomationist on climate stuff.
Yes, yes, you're screaming that all enemies of the cult are liars. Boring old stuff.
Arctic Sea Ice is no longer melting away as there is a flat trend since 2006, so Mann and Danaare lying to you as well.
Since the models have been so good, you telling us that the models must be bad because of sea ice or something just looks bizarre.
You stupid Moon Bats don't know anymore about Climate Science as you do Economics, History, Ethics, Biology or the Constitution.
Awww, whatsamatta princess? Was your idiot "IT'S THE SUN!" talking point ripped to shreds easily? No wonder you're triggered.
Why did you tell the big lie that no liberals take the sun into account? Were you being an idiot or a liar? After all, I don't see any other options.
Given your history as an individual here, everything you say is initially assumed to be a lie, unless independent evidence indicates otherwise.
I think they're confusing Earth with Venus.
Speaking of Venus, Venus makes the denier "IT'S THE SUN!" theory look especially stupid.
Venus is the closest planet with an atmosphere. If the sun is warming, Venus should be warming strongly. It's not. So, the theory faceplants.
