No. Even if the sun did go into a Maunder Minimum, that's just a five-year delay in warming.That is, 5 years of our GHG emissions are a positive forcing that would be equal to the negative forcing of a dimmer sun. So no, no ice age. At worst/best, a small slowdown in warming. And that's if the prediction is correct, which is doubtful.
What's a positive forcing? How would it a appear in a chart comparing CO2 and temperature over say 250,000 years? Can you point to an example of this imaginary "Forcing"?
Can you point to the "Forcing"?
The IPCC indicates a positive forcing as the secondary reaction to retained heat. IE; CO2 retains x amount of heat in our atmosphere and this causes water vapor to increase trapping more heat in the atmosphere.
There is one minor flaw to their theroy, its called the convection cycle which uses water to cool the earth. The same process they say will trap more heat and end up resulting in runaway temperatures will not allow the heat to build up and acts as a negative forcing which CO2 is powerless to stop. that increased water vapor just goes a little higher in the atmosphere and releases the heat to space, all without breaking a sweat.
To date we have not seen an increase in atmospheric water vapor or warming, but we have seen cooling and major ice growth.
Yup. Increased evaporation can lead to two different scenarios. The trophospheric hotspot, or the Iris Effect. We can't find the hotspot so the Iris Effect of more, or differently timed clouds that shade the surface and bounce the sunlight back into space, is more likely.