We Could Be Heading For A Mini Ice Age In 2030

[Ache4Acres]

I have always said that when it comes to climate change that nobody can predict the future. An argument I have made for years is that even if carbon causes global warming, maybe in the future the world is headed for the next ice age and the only way to save the planet is to produce as much atmospheric carbon as we can. Everyone always laughed and could not quite understand the logic...now science is starting to see it my way


Thanks To Reduced Solar Activity, We Could Be Heading For A Mini Ice Age In 2030 | IFLScience
https://www.iflscience.com/environment/we-could-be-heading-mini-ice-age-2030/ https://www.iflscience.com/environment/we-could-be-heading-mini-ice-age-2030/

[Guest]

well Mother Nature is making it increasingly obvious as is shown on your US temp charts , -11 here again
lots are saying , even some on here , what a warm winter it's been
it's like they have their head shoved firmly up their ass

[bucket]

well Mother Nature is making it increasingly obvious as is shown on your US temp charts , -11 here again
lots are saying , even some on here , what a warm winter it's been
it's like they have their head shoved up their ass

January seemed warmer than usual but February was brutal. ...used way more bales than I should have .....

[biglentil]

Human caused global warming is only going to offset global cooling by approximately 1/6th according to Zharkova.

[dmlfarmer]

I have always said that when it comes to climate change that nobody can predict the future. An argument I have made for years is that even if carbon causes global warming, maybe in the future the world is headed for the next ice age and the only way to save the planet is to produce as much atmospheric carbon as we can. Everyone always laughed and could not quite understand the logic...now science is starting to see it my way


Thanks To Reduced Solar Activity, We Could Be Heading For A Mini Ice Age In 2030 | IFLScience
https://www.iflscience.com/environment/we-could-be-heading-mini-ice-age-2030/ https://www.iflscience.com/environment/we-could-be-heading-mini-ice-age-2030/

I am wondering why you did not post the link to the retraction which the same website wrote one day after publishing the article you quote entitled "There Probably Won't Be A "Mini Ice Age" in 15 years" https://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming/ https://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming/

I am wondering why you think the article you quote is credible when in the retraction the writer states that AFTER publishing the article you quote they spoke to the researcher. I would have thought a real journalist would have spoken to the researcher before writing a sensational story.

I am wondering if the news you report is so credible, why there is no byline telling the name of the author or a date of the publication

I am wondering your opinion of the conclusion of the researcher as quoted in the follow-up retraction the next day: "However, Zharkova ends with a word of warning: not about the cold but about humanity's attitude toward the environment during the minimum. We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening. “The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions,” Zharkova says. The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming."

I wonder why you believe this research when it is based on computer modelling, the same type of research which is used to claim global warming

I am wondering why you believe obvious click bait to be science?

[chuckChuck]

"The overwhelming consensus among the world’s climate scientists is that the influence of solar variability on the climate is dwarfed by the impact of increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Most calculations suggest that a new “grand solar minimum” in activity would have a cooling effect that would temporarily offset just a few year’s worth of the warming due to the emission of carbon dioxide by humans.
We may well be heading towards a period of low solar activity, but a new mini ice age seems very unlikely at this point."


Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007. TSI from 1979 to 2015 from the World Radiation Center (see their PMOD index page for data updates). Plots of the most recent solar irradiance can be found at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics LISIRD site.

[Sheepwheat]

A whopping theoretical degree! Sound the alarm, it is obvious we are all going to die here.

[chuckChuck]

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201803

[chuckChuck]

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201803

[chuckChuck]

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201803

[shtferbrains]

I am wondering why you did not post the link to the retraction which the same website wrote one day after publishing the article you quote entitled "There Probably Won't Be A "Mini Ice Age" in 15 years" https://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming/ https://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming/

I am wondering why you think the article you quote is credible when in the retraction the writer states that AFTER publishing the article you quote they spoke to the researcher. I would have thought a real journalist would have spoken to the researcher before writing a sensational story.

I am wondering if the news you report is so credible, why there is no byline telling the name of the author or a date of the publication

I am wondering your opinion of the conclusion of the researcher as quoted in the follow-up retraction the next day: "However, Zharkova ends with a word of warning: not about the cold but about humanity's attitude toward the environment during the minimum. We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening. “The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions,” Zharkova says. The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming."

I wonder why you believe this research when it is based on computer modelling, the same type of research which is used to claim global warming

I am wondering why you believe obvious click bait to be science?

I'm wonder if you read the "retraction"?

The woman is an Astrophysics PhD doing ongoing research about the sun that many don't seem to want to hear about at this time.

Unlike climate change the science is not all in.

Can you imagine the "hate" she had to endure from social media crusaders when they saw that "click bait".

All the "retraction" did was minimize the sensationalizing of the original headline.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Thanks for the daily dose of optimism on a cold snowy morning Chuck. For humanities sake, I really hope you are right.

But, please for your own credibility, stop using the word consensus in regards to anything scientific, we have been through this before. You have done a good job of avoiding using the word believe in this context lately, which is good progress. Just trying to be helpful, so that you can be taken seriously when you discuss these issues.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

All the "retraction" did was minimize the sensationalizing of the original headline.

And more importantly have you seen the sensational headlines the media creates every time a new alarmist report is released, particularly by the IPCC in their own summary for policy makers, which has little in common with the actual report it is supposedly based on, yet we see no retractions or apologies.

[chuckChuck]

Thanks for the daily dose of optimism on a cold snowy morning Chuck. For humanities sake, I really hope you are right.

But, please for your own credibility, stop using the word consensus in regards to anything scientific, we have been through this before. You have done a good job of avoiding using the word believe in this context lately, which is good progress. Just trying to be helpful, so that you can be taken seriously when you discuss these issues.

Anytime you want to provide scientific evidence from climate scientists that humans are not causing climate change and challenge the consensus you are welcome to do so.

We have been waiting for many months for you do this but you have always been too busy! But apparently not too busy to write several posts a day with almost nothing in the way of science to back up your opinions.

[Horse]

well Mother Nature is making it increasingly obvious as is shown on your US temp charts , -11 here again
lots are saying , even some on here , what a warm winter it's been
it's like they have their head shoved firmly up their ass

Speaking of heads up asses you do understand that weather goes on beyond your fence line (dont you ??).