Solar minimum is upon us.

[Billy_Bob]

Start up the coal burning power plants again....it's gonna be a cold one!

But that is the whole point.
It should ALREADY be far colder than normal.
Solar output is way DOWN.

So then why has the Arctic ice melted and allowed the Northwest Passage in 2009, for the first time in thousands of years?
And since there is no increase of heat from the sun, the only other possible source of heat has to be from the release of hundreds of millions of years of sequestered, fossil fuel, stored sunlight energy.

I guess the folks who crossed that passage in 1934 don't count in your mind... And the US Navy are liars...??

Your hyperbole is noted!

 

[Rigby5]

Start up the coal burning power plants again....it's gonna be a cold one!

But that is the whole point.
It should ALREADY be far colder than normal.
Solar output is way DOWN.

So then why has the Arctic ice melted and allowed the Northwest Passage in 2009, for the first time in thousands of years?
And since there is no increase of heat from the sun, the only other possible source of heat has to be from the release of hundreds of millions of years of sequestered, fossil fuel, stored sunlight energy.

I guess the folks who crossed that passage in 1934 don't count in your mind... And the US Navy are liars...??

Your hyperbole is noted!

Wrong.
There have always been coast hugging paths through the Baffin Islands, but they are not suitable for shipping.
They are too narrow, shallow, and unpredictable. They exist due to warming of the coast by Canadian rivers.
Often the trip along the Canadian coast takes several years, waiting for the right conditions at different point.
That is NOT considered a viable commercial Northwest Passage, as opened up in 2009.

When the US Nautilus crossed under the Arctic pole in 1958, it was such a big deal because the Arctic ice used to never melt off like it does now.

USS Nautilus (SSN-571) - Wikipedia

No one claims there was a viable Northwest Passage until 2009.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Start up the coal burning power plants again....it's gonna be a cold one!

But that is the whole point.
It should ALREADY be far colder than normal.
Solar output is way DOWN.

So then why has the Arctic ice melted and allowed the Northwest Passage in 2009, for the first time in thousands of years?
And since there is no increase of heat from the sun, the only other possible source of heat has to be from the release of hundreds of millions of years of sequestered, fossil fuel, stored sunlight energy.

But that is the whole point.
It should ALREADY be far colder than normal.

Burning fossil fuels could prevent the next Ice Age? ******* awesome!

No, ice ages are good things, that replenish ground water, level mountains, etc.
Since they are 120,000 years long, they do not cause a negative impact, because there is more than enough time to adapt to them with very slow migration.
The amount of viable agricultural land does not diminish during an ice age.
It just moves further south.
Deserts bloom, as more northern areas have to be abandoned to ice.
For example, the Sahara and the Mideast likely would go back to being a swamp, that would again produce more future oil.

And preventing an ice age means starting up an additional warming cycle on top of an existing warming cycle.
That could reach unprecedented high temperatures.
And since we know there are inherent positive feed back mechanisms that can greatly accelerate global warming, it is incredibly risky.
We could easily reach such high temperatures that all live on the planet could be wiped out.
We have already increased by 3 degrees F, and all it takes for extinction is about an increase of 11 degrees F.

No, ice ages are good things, that replenish ground water, level mountains, etc.

An ice age would kill hundreds of millions you silly twit. Billions.

 

[Rigby5]

Start up the coal burning power plants again....it's gonna be a cold one!

But that is the whole point.
It should ALREADY be far colder than normal.
Solar output is way DOWN.

So then why has the Arctic ice melted and allowed the Northwest Passage in 2009, for the first time in thousands of years?
And since there is no increase of heat from the sun, the only other possible source of heat has to be from the release of hundreds of millions of years of sequestered, fossil fuel, stored sunlight energy.

But that is the whole point.
It should ALREADY be far colder than normal.

Burning fossil fuels could prevent the next Ice Age? ******* awesome!

No, ice ages are good things, that replenish ground water, level mountains, etc.
Since they are 120,000 years long, they do not cause a negative impact, because there is more than enough time to adapt to them with very slow migration.
The amount of viable agricultural land does not diminish during an ice age.
It just moves further south.
Deserts bloom, as more northern areas have to be abandoned to ice.
For example, the Sahara and the Mideast likely would go back to being a swamp, that would again produce more future oil.

And preventing an ice age means starting up an additional warming cycle on top of an existing warming cycle.
That could reach unprecedented high temperatures.
And since we know there are inherent positive feed back mechanisms that can greatly accelerate global warming, it is incredibly risky.
We could easily reach such high temperatures that all live on the planet could be wiped out.
We have already increased by 3 degrees F, and all it takes for extinction is about an increase of 11 degrees F.

No, ice ages are good things, that replenish ground water, level mountains, etc.

An ice age would kill hundreds of millions you silly twit. Billions.

No, ice ages kill no one.
Remember, they do not sneak up on anyone.
The full cooling and warming cycle is 120,000 years.
What ice ages do is reclaim land that had been lost to desertification.
We badly need an ice age, to restore the Shara, Gobi, and other deserts back to being fertile jungles again.
Ice ages generally increase usable land, as they lower sea levels.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Start up the coal burning power plants again....it's gonna be a cold one!

But that is the whole point.
It should ALREADY be far colder than normal.
Solar output is way DOWN.

So then why has the Arctic ice melted and allowed the Northwest Passage in 2009, for the first time in thousands of years?
And since there is no increase of heat from the sun, the only other possible source of heat has to be from the release of hundreds of millions of years of sequestered, fossil fuel, stored sunlight energy.

But that is the whole point.
It should ALREADY be far colder than normal.

Burning fossil fuels could prevent the next Ice Age? ******* awesome!

No, ice ages are good things, that replenish ground water, level mountains, etc.
Since they are 120,000 years long, they do not cause a negative impact, because there is more than enough time to adapt to them with very slow migration.
The amount of viable agricultural land does not diminish during an ice age.
It just moves further south.
Deserts bloom, as more northern areas have to be abandoned to ice.
For example, the Sahara and the Mideast likely would go back to being a swamp, that would again produce more future oil.

And preventing an ice age means starting up an additional warming cycle on top of an existing warming cycle.
That could reach unprecedented high temperatures.
And since we know there are inherent positive feed back mechanisms that can greatly accelerate global warming, it is incredibly risky.
We could easily reach such high temperatures that all live on the planet could be wiped out.
We have already increased by 3 degrees F, and all it takes for extinction is about an increase of 11 degrees F.

No, ice ages are good things, that replenish ground water, level mountains, etc.

An ice age would kill hundreds of millions you silly twit. Billions.

No, ice ages kill no one.
Remember, they do not sneak up on anyone.
The full cooling and warming cycle is 120,000 years.
What ice ages do is reclaim land that had been lost to desertification.
We badly need an ice age, to restore the Shara, Gobi, and other deserts back to being fertile jungles again.
Ice ages generally increase usable land, as they lower sea levels.

No, ice ages kill no one.

Liar.

Remember, they do not sneak up on anyone.

If you're going to have a longer winter and a shorter summer, how do you still feed
everyone?

We badly need an ice age, to restore the Shara, Gobi, and other deserts back to being fertile jungles again

You're a moron. Billions would starve.

Ice ages generally increase usable land, as they lower sea levels.

How much more usable land was there when Chicago had a mile of ice sitting on top of it?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Start up the coal burning power plants again....it's gonna be a cold one!

But that is the whole point.
It should ALREADY be far colder than normal.
Solar output is way DOWN.

So then why has the Arctic ice melted and allowed the Northwest Passage in 2009, for the first time in thousands of years?
And since there is no increase of heat from the sun, the only other possible source of heat has to be from the release of hundreds of millions of years of sequestered, fossil fuel, stored sunlight energy.

From Wikipedia of a few SUCCESSFUL traverse of the North West Passage:

"Canadian Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer Henry Larsen was the second to sail the passage, crossing west to east, leaving Vancouver on June 23, 1940 and arriving at Halifax on October 11, 1942. More than once on this trip, he was uncertain whether St. Roch, a Royal Canadian Mounted Police "ice-fortified" schooner, would survive the pressures of the sea ice. At one point, Larsen wondered "if we had come this far only to be crushed like a nut on a shoal and then buried by the ice." The ship and all but one of her crew survived the winter on Boothia Peninsula. Each of the men on the trip was awarded a medal by Canada's sovereign, King George VI, in recognition of this feat of Arctic navigation.[57]

Later in 1944, Larsen's return trip was far more swift than his first. He made the trip in 86 days to sail back from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to Vancouver, British Columbia.[58] He set a record for traversing the route in a single season. The ship, after extensive upgrades, followed a more northerly, partially uncharted route.

In 1954, HMCS Labrador[59] completed the east-to-west transit, under the command of Captain O.C.S. Robertson, conducting hydrographic soundings along the route. She was the first warship (and the first deep draft ship) to transit the Northwest Passage and the first warship to circumnavigate North America. In 1956, HMCS Labrador again completed the east-to-west transit, this time under the command of Captain T.C. Pullen.

On July 1, 1957, the United States Coast Guard cutter Storis departed in company with USCGC Bramble and USCGC Spar to search for a deep-draft channel through the Arctic Ocean and to collect hydrographic information. The US Coast Guard Squadron was escorted through Bellot Strait and the Eastern Arctic by HMCS Labrador.[59] Upon her return to Greenland waters, Storis became the first U.S.-registered vessel to circumnavigate North America. Shortly after her return in late 1957, she was reassigned to her new home port of Kodiak, Alaska. "

I could go on by your asinine statement below has been flushed away...…

"So then why has the Arctic ice melted and allowed the Northwest Passage in 2009, for the first time in thousands of years?"

By the way the Summer Arctic ice coverage is actually above average for the Holocene time frame.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The last time we had a little ice age

Instantaneous self-debunkment. The planet is currently in an ice age that has lasted about a million years.

 

[Rigby5]

But that is the whole point.
It should ALREADY be far colder than normal.
Solar output is way DOWN.

So then why has the Arctic ice melted and allowed the Northwest Passage in 2009, for the first time in thousands of years?
And since there is no increase of heat from the sun, the only other possible source of heat has to be from the release of hundreds of millions of years of sequestered, fossil fuel, stored sunlight energy.

But that is the whole point.
It should ALREADY be far colder than normal.

Burning fossil fuels could prevent the next Ice Age? ******* awesome!

No, ice ages are good things, that replenish ground water, level mountains, etc.
Since they are 120,000 years long, they do not cause a negative impact, because there is more than enough time to adapt to them with very slow migration.
The amount of viable agricultural land does not diminish during an ice age.
It just moves further south.
Deserts bloom, as more northern areas have to be abandoned to ice.
For example, the Sahara and the Mideast likely would go back to being a swamp, that would again produce more future oil.

And preventing an ice age means starting up an additional warming cycle on top of an existing warming cycle.
That could reach unprecedented high temperatures.
And since we know there are inherent positive feed back mechanisms that can greatly accelerate global warming, it is incredibly risky.
We could easily reach such high temperatures that all live on the planet could be wiped out.
We have already increased by 3 degrees F, and all it takes for extinction is about an increase of 11 degrees F.

No, ice ages are good things, that replenish ground water, level mountains, etc.

An ice age would kill hundreds of millions you silly twit. Billions.

No, ice ages kill no one.
Remember, they do not sneak up on anyone.
The full cooling and warming cycle is 120,000 years.
What ice ages do is reclaim land that had been lost to desertification.
We badly need an ice age, to restore the Shara, Gobi, and other deserts back to being fertile jungles again.
Ice ages generally increase usable land, as they lower sea levels.

No, ice ages kill no one.

Liar.

Remember, they do not sneak up on anyone.

If you're going to have a longer winter and a shorter summer, how do you still feed
everyone?

We badly need an ice age, to restore the Shara, Gobi, and other deserts back to being fertile jungles again

You're a moron. Billions would starve.

Ice ages generally increase usable land, as they lower sea levels.

How much more usable land was there when Chicago had a mile of ice sitting on top of it?

You do NOT have a longer winter or shorter summer with an ice age.
All you have is cooler temperatures, only about 3 degrees or so.
The main theory is that you just do not retain as much heat over the night time.

No one starves in an ice age.
Food production would greatly increase from the increase rainfall.
There were millions more usable acres for farming during the last ice age.
There were no significant deserts at all.
China, North Africa, Mexico, Chile, Australia, etc., all had lush jungles.

When there are places covered by ice, you simply migrate towards the equator.
And there would be such slow changes, no one would have any problem arranging the migration or even notice it.

 

[Rigby5]

Start up the coal burning power plants again....it's gonna be a cold one!

But that is the whole point.
It should ALREADY be far colder than normal.
Solar output is way DOWN.

So then why has the Arctic ice melted and allowed the Northwest Passage in 2009, for the first time in thousands of years?
And since there is no increase of heat from the sun, the only other possible source of heat has to be from the release of hundreds of millions of years of sequestered, fossil fuel, stored sunlight energy.

From Wikipedia of a few SUCCESSFUL traverse of the North West Passage:

"Canadian Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer Henry Larsen was the second to sail the passage, crossing west to east, leaving Vancouver on June 23, 1940 and arriving at Halifax on October 11, 1942. More than once on this trip, he was uncertain whether St. Roch, a Royal Canadian Mounted Police "ice-fortified" schooner, would survive the pressures of the sea ice. At one point, Larsen wondered "if we had come this far only to be crushed like a nut on a shoal and then buried by the ice." The ship and all but one of her crew survived the winter on Boothia Peninsula. Each of the men on the trip was awarded a medal by Canada's sovereign, King George VI, in recognition of this feat of Arctic navigation.[57]

Later in 1944, Larsen's return trip was far more swift than his first. He made the trip in 86 days to sail back from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to Vancouver, British Columbia.[58] He set a record for traversing the route in a single season. The ship, after extensive upgrades, followed a more northerly, partially uncharted route.

In 1954, HMCS Labrador[59] completed the east-to-west transit, under the command of Captain O.C.S. Robertson, conducting hydrographic soundings along the route. She was the first warship (and the first deep draft ship) to transit the Northwest Passage and the first warship to circumnavigate North America. In 1956, HMCS Labrador again completed the east-to-west transit, this time under the command of Captain T.C. Pullen.

On July 1, 1957, the United States Coast Guard cutter Storis departed in company with USCGC Bramble and USCGC Spar to search for a deep-draft channel through the Arctic Ocean and to collect hydrographic information. The US Coast Guard Squadron was escorted through Bellot Strait and the Eastern Arctic by HMCS Labrador.[59] Upon her return to Greenland waters, Storis became the first U.S.-registered vessel to circumnavigate North America. Shortly after her return in late 1957, she was reassigned to her new home port of Kodiak, Alaska. "

I could go on by your asinine statement below has been flushed away...…

"So then why has the Arctic ice melted and allowed the Northwest Passage in 2009, for the first time in thousands of years?"

By the way the Summer Arctic ice coverage is actually above average for the Holocene time frame.

Totally false conclusion.
When a small ship takes several year to navigate a path near the Canadian coastal waters, through the Baffin Islands, that is NOT at all suitable for shipping, so then is not a Northwest Passage really.
If you read, the Larsen trip took more than a year, and was honored as a feat.
A feat is not something you can use for shipping.
And he uses a small ship that could ply the coastal shallows that commercial freighter could not.
And of course ice breakers do not count.
They do not use an existing Northwest Passage, but make their own, something that again, is not viable for shipping.

And no, summer Arctic ice coverage is not at all average.
It is less than a third what it was even 20 years ago.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But that is the whole point.
It should ALREADY be far colder than normal.

Burning fossil fuels could prevent the next Ice Age? ******* awesome!

No, ice ages are good things, that replenish ground water, level mountains, etc.
Since they are 120,000 years long, they do not cause a negative impact, because there is more than enough time to adapt to them with very slow migration.
The amount of viable agricultural land does not diminish during an ice age.
It just moves further south.
Deserts bloom, as more northern areas have to be abandoned to ice.
For example, the Sahara and the Mideast likely would go back to being a swamp, that would again produce more future oil.

And preventing an ice age means starting up an additional warming cycle on top of an existing warming cycle.
That could reach unprecedented high temperatures.
And since we know there are inherent positive feed back mechanisms that can greatly accelerate global warming, it is incredibly risky.
We could easily reach such high temperatures that all live on the planet could be wiped out.
We have already increased by 3 degrees F, and all it takes for extinction is about an increase of 11 degrees F.

No, ice ages are good things, that replenish ground water, level mountains, etc.

An ice age would kill hundreds of millions you silly twit. Billions.

No, ice ages kill no one.
Remember, they do not sneak up on anyone.
The full cooling and warming cycle is 120,000 years.
What ice ages do is reclaim land that had been lost to desertification.
We badly need an ice age, to restore the Shara, Gobi, and other deserts back to being fertile jungles again.
Ice ages generally increase usable land, as they lower sea levels.

No, ice ages kill no one.

Liar.

Remember, they do not sneak up on anyone.

If you're going to have a longer winter and a shorter summer, how do you still feed
everyone?

We badly need an ice age, to restore the Shara, Gobi, and other deserts back to being fertile jungles again

You're a moron. Billions would starve.

Ice ages generally increase usable land, as they lower sea levels.

How much more usable land was there when Chicago had a mile of ice sitting on top of it?

You do NOT have a longer winter or shorter summer with an ice age.
All you have is cooler temperatures, only about 3 degrees or so.
The main theory is that you just do not retain as much heat over the night time.

No one starves in an ice age.
Food production would greatly increase from the increase rainfall.
There were millions more usable acres for farming during the last ice age.
There were no significant deserts at all.
China, North Africa, Mexico, Chile, Australia, etc., all had lush jungles.

When there are places covered by ice, you simply migrate towards the equator.
And there would be such slow changes, no one would have any problem arranging the migration or even notice it.

You do NOT have a longer winter or shorter summer with an ice age.
All you have is cooler temperatures, only about 3 degrees or so.

Summer in Chicago with a mile of ice over my head is going to impact the growing season in Illinois, eh?

No one starves in an ice age.

How'd crops do during the Little Ice Age?

 

[Rigby5]

No, ice ages are good things, that replenish ground water, level mountains, etc.
Since they are 120,000 years long, they do not cause a negative impact, because there is more than enough time to adapt to them with very slow migration.
The amount of viable agricultural land does not diminish during an ice age.
It just moves further south.
Deserts bloom, as more northern areas have to be abandoned to ice.
For example, the Sahara and the Mideast likely would go back to being a swamp, that would again produce more future oil.

And preventing an ice age means starting up an additional warming cycle on top of an existing warming cycle.
That could reach unprecedented high temperatures.
And since we know there are inherent positive feed back mechanisms that can greatly accelerate global warming, it is incredibly risky.
We could easily reach such high temperatures that all live on the planet could be wiped out.
We have already increased by 3 degrees F, and all it takes for extinction is about an increase of 11 degrees F.

No, ice ages are good things, that replenish ground water, level mountains, etc.

An ice age would kill hundreds of millions you silly twit. Billions.

No, ice ages kill no one.
Remember, they do not sneak up on anyone.
The full cooling and warming cycle is 120,000 years.
What ice ages do is reclaim land that had been lost to desertification.
We badly need an ice age, to restore the Shara, Gobi, and other deserts back to being fertile jungles again.
Ice ages generally increase usable land, as they lower sea levels.

No, ice ages kill no one.

Liar.

Remember, they do not sneak up on anyone.

If you're going to have a longer winter and a shorter summer, how do you still feed
everyone?

We badly need an ice age, to restore the Shara, Gobi, and other deserts back to being fertile jungles again

You're a moron. Billions would starve.

Ice ages generally increase usable land, as they lower sea levels.

How much more usable land was there when Chicago had a mile of ice sitting on top of it?

You do NOT have a longer winter or shorter summer with an ice age.
All you have is cooler temperatures, only about 3 degrees or so.
The main theory is that you just do not retain as much heat over the night time.

No one starves in an ice age.
Food production would greatly increase from the increase rainfall.
There were millions more usable acres for farming during the last ice age.
There were no significant deserts at all.
China, North Africa, Mexico, Chile, Australia, etc., all had lush jungles.

When there are places covered by ice, you simply migrate towards the equator.
And there would be such slow changes, no one would have any problem arranging the migration or even notice it.

You do NOT have a longer winter or shorter summer with an ice age.
All you have is cooler temperatures, only about 3 degrees or so.

Summer in Chicago with a mile of ice over my head is going to impact the growing season in Illinois, eh?

No one starves in an ice age.

How'd crops do during the Little Ice Age?

No crops are grown in Chicago now anyway.
You miss the point.
When there is ice in Chicago, there was open land just 100 miles south of Chicago, constantly watered by the run off from the glacier over Chicago.
The total farmable land greatly increased during ice ages.
Ice covers very little additional land, but all land get much more moisture.

The Little Ice Age was not an ice age at all.
It was way too fast, and no one could adjust to it in time.
It also did not bring more rain to deserts.
Nor was it global even.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Start up the coal burning power plants again....it's gonna be a cold one!

But that is the whole point.
It should ALREADY be far colder than normal.
Solar output is way DOWN.

So then why has the Arctic ice melted and allowed the Northwest Passage in 2009, for the first time in thousands of years?
And since there is no increase of heat from the sun, the only other possible source of heat has to be from the release of hundreds of millions of years of sequestered, fossil fuel, stored sunlight energy.

You and your short insignificant time spans... get a life liar!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, ice ages are good things, that replenish ground water, level mountains, etc.

An ice age would kill hundreds of millions you silly twit. Billions.

No, ice ages kill no one.
Remember, they do not sneak up on anyone.
The full cooling and warming cycle is 120,000 years.
What ice ages do is reclaim land that had been lost to desertification.
We badly need an ice age, to restore the Shara, Gobi, and other deserts back to being fertile jungles again.
Ice ages generally increase usable land, as they lower sea levels.

No, ice ages kill no one.

Liar.

Remember, they do not sneak up on anyone.

If you're going to have a longer winter and a shorter summer, how do you still feed
everyone?

We badly need an ice age, to restore the Shara, Gobi, and other deserts back to being fertile jungles again

You're a moron. Billions would starve.

Ice ages generally increase usable land, as they lower sea levels.

How much more usable land was there when Chicago had a mile of ice sitting on top of it?

You do NOT have a longer winter or shorter summer with an ice age.
All you have is cooler temperatures, only about 3 degrees or so.
The main theory is that you just do not retain as much heat over the night time.

No one starves in an ice age.
Food production would greatly increase from the increase rainfall.
There were millions more usable acres for farming during the last ice age.
There were no significant deserts at all.
China, North Africa, Mexico, Chile, Australia, etc., all had lush jungles.

When there are places covered by ice, you simply migrate towards the equator.
And there would be such slow changes, no one would have any problem arranging the migration or even notice it.

You do NOT have a longer winter or shorter summer with an ice age.
All you have is cooler temperatures, only about 3 degrees or so.

Summer in Chicago with a mile of ice over my head is going to impact the growing season in Illinois, eh?

No one starves in an ice age.

How'd crops do during the Little Ice Age?

No crops are grown in Chicago now anyway.
You miss the point.
When there is ice in Chicago, there was open land just 100 miles south of Chicago, constantly watered by the run off from the glacier over Chicago.
The total farmable land greatly increased during ice ages.
Ice covers very little additional land, but all land get much more moisture.

The Little Ice Age was not an ice age at all.
It was way too fast, and no one could adjust to it in time.
It also did not bring more rain to deserts.
Nor was it global even.

No crops are grown in Chicago now anyway.
You miss the point.

Hey, moron, try to read.

Summer in Chicago with a mile of ice over my head is going to impact the growing season in Illinois, eh?

You missed the point.

The Little Ice Age was not an ice age at all.​

It was way too fast, and no one could adjust to it in time.​

Way too fast? How much faster was it than the last Ice Age? How do you know?
Do you think an Ice Age happens smoothly? Ice sheets move a certain distance, perhaps a kilometer per year and then stop.....so that people "have time to adjust"?
​

It also did not bring more rain to deserts.​

Some Ice Ages do, some don't? Weird.​

 

[Rigby5]

Start up the coal burning power plants again....it's gonna be a cold one!

But that is the whole point.
It should ALREADY be far colder than normal.
Solar output is way DOWN.

So then why has the Arctic ice melted and allowed the Northwest Passage in 2009, for the first time in thousands of years?
And since there is no increase of heat from the sun, the only other possible source of heat has to be from the release of hundreds of millions of years of sequestered, fossil fuel, stored sunlight energy.

View attachment 241749
You and your short insignificant time spans... get a life liar!

Care to explain what you mean?
Clearly your graph shows we are past the last natural warming cycle, and are supposed to entering into the cooling phase of the next ice age.
But the last 50 years are all wrong and increasing temperature instead.
The only possible cause, since we know it is not solar activity or planetary orbit, has to be the industrial revolution's massive increase on greenhouse gases.
There is no other known explanation.
Comparing a 70 year human lifespan to a 120,000 year long ice age cycle, a human life span is insigificant.

 

[Rigby5]

No, ice ages kill no one.
Remember, they do not sneak up on anyone.
The full cooling and warming cycle is 120,000 years.
What ice ages do is reclaim land that had been lost to desertification.
We badly need an ice age, to restore the Shara, Gobi, and other deserts back to being fertile jungles again.
Ice ages generally increase usable land, as they lower sea levels.

No, ice ages kill no one.

Liar.

Remember, they do not sneak up on anyone.

If you're going to have a longer winter and a shorter summer, how do you still feed
everyone?

We badly need an ice age, to restore the Shara, Gobi, and other deserts back to being fertile jungles again

You're a moron. Billions would starve.

Ice ages generally increase usable land, as they lower sea levels.

How much more usable land was there when Chicago had a mile of ice sitting on top of it?

You do NOT have a longer winter or shorter summer with an ice age.
All you have is cooler temperatures, only about 3 degrees or so.
The main theory is that you just do not retain as much heat over the night time.

No one starves in an ice age.
Food production would greatly increase from the increase rainfall.
There were millions more usable acres for farming during the last ice age.
There were no significant deserts at all.
China, North Africa, Mexico, Chile, Australia, etc., all had lush jungles.

When there are places covered by ice, you simply migrate towards the equator.
And there would be such slow changes, no one would have any problem arranging the migration or even notice it.

You do NOT have a longer winter or shorter summer with an ice age.
All you have is cooler temperatures, only about 3 degrees or so.

Summer in Chicago with a mile of ice over my head is going to impact the growing season in Illinois, eh?

No one starves in an ice age.

How'd crops do during the Little Ice Age?

No crops are grown in Chicago now anyway.
You miss the point.
When there is ice in Chicago, there was open land just 100 miles south of Chicago, constantly watered by the run off from the glacier over Chicago.
The total farmable land greatly increased during ice ages.
Ice covers very little additional land, but all land get much more moisture.

The Little Ice Age was not an ice age at all.
It was way too fast, and no one could adjust to it in time.
It also did not bring more rain to deserts.
Nor was it global even.

No crops are grown in Chicago now anyway.
You miss the point.

Hey, moron, try to read.

Summer in Chicago with a mile of ice over my head is going to impact the growing season in Illinois, eh?

You missed the point.

The Little Ice Age was not an ice age at all.
It was way too fast, and no one could adjust to it in time.

Way too fast? How much faster was it than the last Ice Age? How do you know?
Do you think an Ice Age happens smoothly? Ice sheets move a certain distance, perhaps a kilometer per year and then stop.....so that people "have time to adjust"?

It also did not bring more rain to deserts.

Some Ice Ages do, some don't? Weird.​

No, ice a mile thick over Chicago will NOT at harm the growing season in Illinois, but instead will greatly increase farming output in Illinois, as glacial melt-off adds much more water.
Ice ages are not at all like winter, and have the same long summer days and shorter winter days.
The cause of ice ages is from loss of greenhouse gases, which causes drastic drops in night time temperatures.

The Little Ice Age was only a couple hundred years and very fast, not at all like 120,000 years like all real ice ages are.
The is because the Little Ice Age was from a earth orbit wobble, and not from a change in greenhouse gases.
Earth orbit wobbles, (precession and nutation) can happen very quickly.
Changes in atmospheric gases usually takes much longer.

Glaciers do not move like a kilometer a year.
More like a meter a year at most.

And from what I have read, all ice ages always bring much more rain fall.
I have never heard of a dry ice age.
The farm lands never decrease in size, but just move south, and likely increase.

 

[sparky]

Flows of everything from earths core and magma to our atmosphere. Everything has an electron charge thus EVERYTHING IS AFFECTED.

You should read Nikloa Tesla .....

~S~

 

[Crick]

Start up the coal burning power plants again....it's gonna be a cold one!

But that is the whole point.
It should ALREADY be far colder than normal.
Solar output is way DOWN.

So then why has the Arctic ice melted and allowed the Northwest Passage in 2009, for the first time in thousands of years?
And since there is no increase of heat from the sun, the only other possible source of heat has to be from the release of hundreds of millions of years of sequestered, fossil fuel, stored sunlight energy.

You should look at these data plotted against something a little more absolute than "arbitrary units". You will find that the change in TSI is a few thousandths.