Sunspot activity or lack thereof, may create another little ice age

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
A new Little Ice Age?
Instead of dangerous warming, Earth could be entering a chilly era

This image made from video provided by NASA shows part of the International Space Station with the Earth in the background on Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2015. (AP Photo/NASA) more >

By Paul Driessen - - Sunday, May 17, 2015
ANALYSIS/OPINION:

President Obama continues to prophesy “dangerous” global warming, due to fossil fuels. Computer modelers conjure up crisis scenarios based on their assumption that carbon dioxide drives climate change.

What if they are wrong? What if the sun refuses to cooperate?

“The sun is almost completely blank,” meteorologist Paul Dorian notes. Virtually no sunspots darken its face. “The main driver of all weather and climate has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century.”


Going back to 1755, only a few solar cycles have had a lower number of sunspots during their maximum phase, he adds. This continued downward trend began two decades ago, just before Earth stopped warming. If sunspots continue declining for a couple more cycles, Earth could enter another “grand minimum,” an extended period of low solar activity.

Reading University space physicist Mike Lockwood agrees. Solar activity is falling perhaps “faster than at any time in the last 9,300 years,” he observes.

That would mean less incoming solar radiation, which could have a marked cooling effect — as happened during previous decadeslong episodes of low solar activity. The “Maunder Minimum” lasted 70 years (1645-1715), the “Dalton Minimum” 40 years (1790-1830). They brought even colder temperatures to the “Little Ice Age.”


Habibullo Abdussamatov, director of Russia’s space research laboratory and its global warming research team, is convinced another little ice age is on its way. That would be Little Ice Age No. 19.

A couple degrees warmer would be good for humanity and planet, especially with more plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide in the air. Crops, forests and grasslands would grow faster and better. Longer growing seasons over larger areas of land would support more habitats, wildlife, agriculture and people — particularly if everyone has access to ample, reliable, affordable motor fuels, electricity and modern farming technologies.

Most people, including the elderly, can easily handle such warmth, especially with air conditioning.

But a couple degrees colder would bring serious adverse consequences for habitats, wildlife, agriculture and humanity. This does not mean another Pleistocene ice age — with glaciers obliterating forests and cities under mile-thick walls of ice across North America, Europe and Asia. It may not even mean a full-blown little ice age.

However, just a 2-degree drop in average global temperatures would shrink growing seasons, cropland and wildlife habitats. Agriculture would be curtailed across Canada, northern Europe and Russia, putting greater pressure on remaining land to feed hungry families without turning more habitats into cropland. Land now devoted to corn for ethanol would have to be returned to food crops.

Our ability to feed Earth’s growing population would be seriously impaired, especially if radical environmentalists continue opposing chemical fertilizers, insecticides, biotechnology and mechanized farming. Those technologies would ensure far more food per acre under colder conditions, even if anti-hydrocarbon policies mean crops are starved for carbon dioxide.

Colder climates can also bring more unpredictable storms and cold snaps during shortened growing seasons. That happened frequently during the last Little Ice Age (1350-1850), spreading crop failures, hunger, malnutrition, starvation and disease across much of Europe.

Worst of all, cold kills. Modern homes and buildings with affordable heat make it easy to survive even brutal winters in comfort. However, carbon taxes, restrictions on coal and natural gas, renewable energy mandates and other ill-conceived programs have sent electricity and home heating prices soaring.

When energy is rationed, expensive and unpredictable, businesses lay off people or close their doors. Forced into welfare, people suffer poor health and well-being. The elderly are especially susceptible.

In Britain, many pensioners now ride buses or sit in libraries all day to stay warm; others burn used books in stoves. (They’re cheaper than coal or wood.) Thousands die of hypothermia because they can no longer afford proper heat.

In Germany, Greece and other countries, rising energy costs have caused a surge in illegal tree-cutting and wildlife poaching, as desperate families try to stay warm and feed themselves.

These realities portend what will likely happen on a far larger scale if Earth enters another prolonged cold era. Widespread turmoil, rising death tolls and climate refugees by the millions could become reality.

Climate modelers must get their predictions right so we can be properly prepared. That means basing models on all the forces that determine global temperatures and climate fluctuations: the sun, cosmic rays, deep ocean currents, volcanoes and other powerful natural forces — not just carbon dioxide, which represents a mere 0.04 percent of Earth’s atmosphere.

It means comparing predictions with actual real-world observations and data. If the models still do not predict accurately, modelers must revise their hypotheses and methodologies yet again, until forecasts square with reality.

Meanwhile, politicians must base energy policies on how Earth’s climate and weather actually behave — and on how laws and regulations affect jobs, economic growth, and human health and welfare, especially for poor and middle-class American families and the poorest people on our planet.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT.org), author of “Eco-Imperialism: Green Power — Black Death” (Merril Press, 2010), and coauthor of “Cracking Big Green: Saving the World from the Save-the-Earth Money Machine” (CFACT, 2014).
 

op2

Senior
Mar 16, 2014
11,174
547
103
A new Little Ice Age?
Instead of dangerous warming, Earth could be entering a chilly era

This image made from video provided by NASA shows part of the International Space Station with the Earth in the background on Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2015. (AP Photo/NASA) more >

By Paul Driessen - - Sunday, May 17, 2015
ANALYSIS/OPINION:

President Obama continues to prophesy “dangerous” global warming, due to fossil fuels. Computer modelers conjure up crisis scenarios based on their assumption that carbon dioxide drives climate change.

What if they are wrong? What if the sun refuses to cooperate?

“The sun is almost completely blank,” meteorologist Paul Dorian notes. Virtually no sunspots darken its face. “The main driver of all weather and climate has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century.”


Going back to 1755, only a few solar cycles have had a lower number of sunspots during their maximum phase, he adds. This continued downward trend began two decades ago, just before Earth stopped warming. If sunspots continue declining for a couple more cycles, Earth could enter another “grand minimum,” an extended period of low solar activity.

Reading University space physicist Mike Lockwood agrees. Solar activity is falling perhaps “faster than at any time in the last 9,300 years,” he observes.

That would mean less incoming solar radiation, which could have a marked cooling effect — as happened during previous decadeslong episodes of low solar activity. The “Maunder Minimum” lasted 70 years (1645-1715), the “Dalton Minimum” 40 years (1790-1830). They brought even colder temperatures to the “Little Ice Age.”


Habibullo Abdussamatov, director of Russia’s space research laboratory and its global warming research team, is convinced another little ice age is on its way. That would be Little Ice Age No. 19.

A couple degrees warmer would be good for humanity and planet, especially with more plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide in the air. Crops, forests and grasslands would grow faster and better. Longer growing seasons over larger areas of land would support more habitats, wildlife, agriculture and people — particularly if everyone has access to ample, reliable, affordable motor fuels, electricity and modern farming technologies.

Most people, including the elderly, can easily handle such warmth, especially with air conditioning.

But a couple degrees colder would bring serious adverse consequences for habitats, wildlife, agriculture and humanity. This does not mean another Pleistocene ice age — with glaciers obliterating forests and cities under mile-thick walls of ice across North America, Europe and Asia. It may not even mean a full-blown little ice age.

However, just a 2-degree drop in average global temperatures would shrink growing seasons, cropland and wildlife habitats. Agriculture would be curtailed across Canada, northern Europe and Russia, putting greater pressure on remaining land to feed hungry families without turning more habitats into cropland. Land now devoted to corn for ethanol would have to be returned to food crops.

Our ability to feed Earth’s growing population would be seriously impaired, especially if radical environmentalists continue opposing chemical fertilizers, insecticides, biotechnology and mechanized farming. Those technologies would ensure far more food per acre under colder conditions, even if anti-hydrocarbon policies mean crops are starved for carbon dioxide.

Colder climates can also bring more unpredictable storms and cold snaps during shortened growing seasons. That happened frequently during the last Little Ice Age (1350-1850), spreading crop failures, hunger, malnutrition, starvation and disease across much of Europe.

Worst of all, cold kills. Modern homes and buildings with affordable heat make it easy to survive even brutal winters in comfort. However, carbon taxes, restrictions on coal and natural gas, renewable energy mandates and other ill-conceived programs have sent electricity and home heating prices soaring.

When energy is rationed, expensive and unpredictable, businesses lay off people or close their doors. Forced into welfare, people suffer poor health and well-being. The elderly are especially susceptible.

In Britain, many pensioners now ride buses or sit in libraries all day to stay warm; others burn used books in stoves. (They’re cheaper than coal or wood.) Thousands die of hypothermia because they can no longer afford proper heat.

In Germany, Greece and other countries, rising energy costs have caused a surge in illegal tree-cutting and wildlife poaching, as desperate families try to stay warm and feed themselves.

These realities portend what will likely happen on a far larger scale if Earth enters another prolonged cold era. Widespread turmoil, rising death tolls and climate refugees by the millions could become reality.

Climate modelers must get their predictions right so we can be properly prepared. That means basing models on all the forces that determine global temperatures and climate fluctuations: the sun, cosmic rays, deep ocean currents, volcanoes and other powerful natural forces — not just carbon dioxide, which represents a mere 0.04 percent of Earth’s atmosphere.

It means comparing predictions with actual real-world observations and data. If the models still do not predict accurately, modelers must revise their hypotheses and methodologies yet again, until forecasts square with reality.

Meanwhile, politicians must base energy policies on how Earth’s climate and weather actually behave — and on how laws and regulations affect jobs, economic growth, and human health and welfare, especially for poor and middle-class American families and the poorest people on our planet.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT.org), author of “Eco-Imperialism: Green Power — Black Death” (Merril Press, 2010), and coauthor of “Cracking Big Green: Saving the World from the Save-the-Earth Money Machine” (CFACT, 2014).

Why is the climate expert Paul Driessen publishing his work on Townhall.com instead of in the science journals?
 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
81,938
2,085
113
Why is the climate expert Paul Driessen publishing his work on Townhall.com instead of in the science journals?
it has been freaking could this past weekend. I had to play 54 holes in it.
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
A new Little Ice Age?
Instead of dangerous warming, Earth could be entering a chilly era

This image made from video provided by NASA shows part of the International Space Station with the Earth in the background on Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2015. (AP Photo/NASA) more >

By Paul Driessen - - Sunday, May 17, 2015
ANALYSIS/OPINION:

President Obama continues to prophesy “dangerous” global warming, due to fossil fuels. Computer modelers conjure up crisis scenarios based on their assumption that carbon dioxide drives climate change.

What if they are wrong? What if the sun refuses to cooperate?


[roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll]

You post an article from May 2015 claiming that we could be entering a cooling period and 2016 was the warmest year on record.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
[roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll]

You post an article from May 2015 claiming that we could be entering a cooling period and 2016 was the warmest year on record.

El Nino, very powerful, ended during the latter half of 2016. Now temps are plummeting. Just as they did during the last big El Nino 18 years ago. Nice try.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Paul Driessen is NOT a scientist. He is a lobbyist.

[laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing]

I posted a second link from a phys.org. Confirms the lack of sunspot activity and possible repercussions. Nice try.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
And February 2017 was the second warmest February on record in a 138 year record.

Not according to satellite measurements, by far the most accurate. 2017 has seen a massive drop in temps. El Nino is over.

https://www.technocracy.news/index....-global-temperatures-within-six-month-period/

And this was for the latter stages of 2016. The drop continued in 2017. April not a good month for warmists.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/04/29/global-temperatures-plunge-nearly-1-degree-f-in-april/
 

Brushy Bill

Hall of Famer
Mar 31, 2009
52,627
102,604
113
It's a moot point the great Climate alarmist purge at the EPA has begun, let the good times role. [cheers]
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
Not according to satellite measurements, by far the most accurate. 2017 has seen a massive drop in temps. El Nino is over.

https://www.technocracy.news/index....-global-temperatures-within-six-month-period/

And this was for the latter stages of 2016. The drop continued in 2017. April not a good month for warmists.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/04/29/global-temperatures-plunge-nearly-1-degree-f-in-april/

March 2017 was the second warmest March in recorded history, 138 years, despite the absence of an El-Nino.

You just don't know when to stop. [laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing]
 

Brushy Bill

Hall of Famer
Mar 31, 2009
52,627
102,604
113
Idiocracy playing out right before our eyes.

 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
March 2017 was the second warmest March in recorded history, 138 years, despite the absence of an El-Nino.

You just don't know when to stop. [laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing]

1 degree drop in April. Largest on record. Satellite data much more accurate than what you may be reading. No warming in over 18 years.
 

Brushy Bill

Hall of Famer
Mar 31, 2009
52,627
102,604
113
You should advise the POTUS that it is spelled "counsel" not "council" and "tap" not "tapp." And you all are the "smart ones" in the room telling us how global warming is fake. [laughing]

You keep worrying about spelling errors there Jr.
 

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,572
755
113
Why is the climate expert Paul Driessen publishing his work on Townhall.com instead of in the science journals?
Maybe he prefers that people read his work instead of eggheads?
 

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,572
755
113
You should advise the POTUS that it is spelled "counsel" not "council" and "tap" not "tapp." And you all are the "smart ones" in the room telling us how global warming is fake. [laughing]
Being qualified to do what every word processor developed since 1995 does automatically and proud of it = poor.
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
Satellite data much more accurate than what you may be reading.

[laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing]

It's from actual surface thermometers, which are much more accurate than satellite readings.

https://youtu.be/WX7aWsxe9yw

Preeminent satellite expert Carl Mears, of Remote Sensing Systems, sides with surface thermometers as consistently providing a generally more reliable record.

[laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing]
 

Mntneer

Sophomore
Oct 7, 2001
10,192
196
0
[laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing]

It's from actual surface thermometers, which are much more accurate than satellite readings.


https://youtu.be/WX7aWsxe9yw
Preeminent satellite expert Carl Mears, of Remote Sensing Systems, sides with surface thermometers as consistently providing a generally more reliable record.

[laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing]


It used to be we were told that the satellite data was the best data. o_O
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
[laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing]

It's from actual surface thermometers, which are much more accurate than satellite readings.


https://youtu.be/WX7aWsxe9yw
Preeminent satellite expert Carl Mears, of Remote Sensing Systems, sides with surface thermometers as consistently providing a generally more reliable record.

[laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing]


And I can provide links as well that dispute that claim. It's pretty simple. Surface measurements are influenced by their surroundings (buildings, concrete, etc.), satellite measurements don't have that same problem.

http://www.cfact.org/2016/01/26/measuring-global-temperatures-satellites-or-thermometers/
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
It used to be we were told that the satellite data was the best data. o_O

It is. Satellites measure temps across the globe without the many factors that influence ground based measurements (urban locations, buildings, concrete, etc.).
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
It used to be we were told that the satellite data was the best data. o_O

Satellite data is better than temperature inference from proxies (tree rings) which is what moron PATX was posting but he isn't intelligent enough to actually understand what he posts. [laughing]
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Satellite data is better than temperature inference from proxies (tree rings) which is what moron PATX was posting but he isn't intelligent enough to actually understand what he posts. [laughing]

The link I posted from Dr. Roy Spencer has forgotten more than you will ever know. In fact, I know very few people that know less than you.
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
And I can provide links as well that dispute that claim. It's pretty simple. Surface measurements are influenced by their surroundings (buildings, concrete, etc.), satellite measurements don't have that same problem.

http://www.cfact.org/2016/01/26/measuring-global-temperatures-satellites-or-thermometers/

Well damn, you should tell NOAA and NASA because I'm sure they are not intelligent enough to figure out to place surface thermometers where they won't be impacted by heat sinks.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Well damn, you should tell NOAA and NASA because I'm sure they are not intelligent enough to figure out to place surface thermometers where they won't be impacted by heat sinks.

Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., a senior research scientist at the University of Colorado-Boulder, rejected the way global temperatures are measured. “Unfortunately, the surface temperature analysis contains several uncertainties and systematic biases when used to diagnose global warming,” Pielke Sr. wrote in the Washington Post.

I'd say these guys are extremely intelligent as well. NOAA is under investigation for hiding data and for manipulating data. You may want to find a different source as your set of experts. NASA studies have been so flawed that their funding is now being eliminated.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01...degree-while-satellites-show-pause-continues/

“One of them is with respect to land minimum temperatures over land. Rather than measuring changes in heat content through depth in the atmosphere, even slight changes in vertical mixing of heat (even with no net heating) can produce warmer minimum temperatures,” he wrote.
 

Brushy Bill

Hall of Famer
Mar 31, 2009
52,627
102,604
113
Yep, I'm sure NOAA and NASA don't have an agenda (cough...funding) at all.
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
Yep, I'm sure NOAA and NASA don't have an agenda (cough...funding) at all.

I'm sure you are on to something there. The top scientists in the world wouldn't want to chance impugning their reputation would they?

I'll bet they all got together, even with scientists from many other countries all over the world and said "hey, let's fudge data so NOAA and NASA can get more funding."

You sure are onto something there, Inspector Clouseau.
 

op2

Senior
Mar 16, 2014
11,174
547
103

They're going to get money and funding no matter what. They're the NOAA and NASA. The reason they exist is to investigate stuff like this. They don't benefit financially by coming to one conclusion or another unlike, say, the fossil fuel industry.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
They're going to get money and funding no matter what. They're the NOAA and NASA. The reason they exist is to investigate stuff like this. They don't benefit financially by coming to one conclusion or another unlike, say, the fossil fuel industry.

That is respectfully, BS. Obama desperately wanted global warming to be true. He funded those agencies to prove his hypothesis. They knew what he wanted. He made that clear even before running for President. Kill coal. Hurt the remaining fossil fuels. Move the country toward green energy. The scientists all knew where the funding was coming from and what was expected.
 

op2

Senior
Mar 16, 2014
11,174
547
103
That is respectfully, BS. Obama desperately wanted global warming to be true. He funded those agencies to prove his hypothesis. They knew what he wanted. He made that clear even before running for President. Kill coal. Hurt the remaining fossil fuels. Move the country toward green energy. The scientists all knew where the funding was coming from and what was expected.

It was going on before Obama came along. And it's continuing after Obama is gone. These aren't political agencies.
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
That is respectfully, BS. Obama desperately wanted global warming to be true. He funded those agencies to prove his hypothesis. They knew what he wanted. He made that clear even before running for President. Kill coal. Hurt the remaining fossil fuels. Move the country toward green energy. The scientists all knew where the funding was coming from and what was expected.

The U.S Navy believes global warming is real and is an issue to be dealt with.

So, is the U.S. Navy part of the "deep state?"