Climate Change

New Little Ice Age May Counteract Global Warming

Researchers project a grand sunspot minimum by 2030

|

FrostFair
DailyMail

As if having climate models to predict future weather on earth is not challenging enough, now some astrophysicists have devised what is essentially a climate model for the sun. As many news outlets have been reporting, Northumbria University mathematics professor Valentina Zharkova claims that the sunspot model is 97 percent accurate.

If the model is right, then the sun is heading by 2030 toward a grand sunspot minimum of the sort last seen during the Maunder Minimum in the 18th century. During the Maunder Minimum sunpots basically disappeared and energy output of the sun fell. The result was the Little Ice Age in which temperatures dropped significantly in the Northern Hemisphere. Famously, the weather was so cold that the Thames River in London regularly froze and residents used the iced over river as the site for "Frost Fairs."

One theory for why a lack of sunspots produces an earthly chill is that reduced solar output, especially ultraviolet light, means that less ozone is being produced in the stratosphere which affects atmospheric circulation in ways that lower the average temperature. By how much? According to some modeling results, a new grand minimum would lower temperatures by perhaps -0.2 to -0.3 degrees Celsius below what they would otherwise be. In a 2013 modeling study, "Could a future 'Grand Solar Minimum' like the Maunder Minimum stop global warming?," in Geophysical Research Letters concluded:

…a grand solar minimum in the middle of the 21st century would slow down human-caused global warming and reduce the relative increase of surface temperatures by several tenths of a degree. … Therefore, results here indicate that such a grand solar minimum would slow down and somewhat delay, but not stop, human-caused global warming.

Assuming that the University of Alabama in Huntsville global temperature trend of +0.11 degree Celsius per decade is sustained, such a new grand minimum would counteract three decades of warming.

Advertisement

NEXT: "'Shouting fire in a theater': The life and times of constitutional law's most enduring analogy"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. *preparing to burn my giant barrel of crude oil* Because I love Gia!

    1. gia? As in the dead supermodel? Why would she warrant such burnings?

      1. Old Viking custom……push the burning boat with the body out to sea……

        YOU FIRST!

    2. It is still surprising that 70,000 researcher/scientist around the world (158 countries) looking at Man Made Global Warming … with 10,885 pier reviewed studies published last year….and only 5 with any critical views of Man Made Global Warming.

    3. You go burn, Girl….once you are that dumb, there is no sense talking to you.

      Reality is 100 million men, women, and children live within 3 feet (three) of sea level.
      Combine the rise in sea level with storms and you get storm surges…Killing tens of thousands.
      The remaining migrate to avoid the death from the storm surges and the diseases so many deaths spawn.

      Since you don’t care about your fellow man, there are Trillions of dollars of infrastructure within 3 feet of sea level. Ports and Cities and resorts.

      Major challenges to prosperity…..does that get your attention??

      If you are a fan of Glaciers…visit Glacier National Part.

      A few decades ago, our US Glacier National Park had 150 pristine glaciers….today, there remains only 25….and soon 24.

      Don’t miss the opportunity…..Visit Glacier National Park Soon.

  2. “As if having climate models to predict future weather on, now some astrophysicists have devised what is essentially a climate model for the sun.”

    Think you missed a phrase there. I’m going to guess that it would have been non-sarcastic and highly laudatory toward the Climate Rasputins.

    1. KY: Phrase added. You judge.

      1. 6.4 from Russian judge. You didn’t praise Dr Zharkova sufficiently!

        1. An easy myth to debunk

          This ‘impending mini ice age’ myth is incredibly easy to debunk. In fact it just takes asking one simple question ? if the sun is such a key driver of the Earth’s climate, then why has the entire planet (air, oceans, land, and ice) warmed rapidly over the past 60 years while solar activity has declined?

        2. No Praise !
          WEAK computer modeling

    2. They ask themselves, what is there that we know less about than the earths climate?

    3. The study about the mini ice age is based on a computer model….?

    4. In point of fact,
      Our Sun has been going thru a period of relative low emissions/heat energy…for some 60 years and Global Temps have gone up and up and up and up for the century.

      So a Mini-Ice Age?…..good luck even noticing a change…..from the ever increasing temps.

      2000-2009 was the HOTTEST decade on record.
      2014 the HOTTEST year.
      2015 is well on its way to become the Next HOTTEST YEAR

      Gravity
      ?yes, gravit
      …….y?is the latest victim of climate change in Antarctica.
      That’s the stunning conclusion announced Friday by the European Space Agency.

      “The loss of ice from West Antarctica between 2009 and 2012 caused a dip in the gravity field over the region,” writes the ESA, whose GOCE satellite measured the change. Apparently, melting billions of tons of ice year after year has implications that would make even Isaac Newton blanch.

      :…..”The biggest implication is the new measurements confirm global warming is changing the Antarctic in fundamental ways.

      ……” Earlier this year, a separate team of scientists announced that major West Antarctic glaciers have begun an “unstoppable” “collapse,” committing global sea levels to a rise of several meters over the next few hundred years.

  3. Thank you fossil fuels…dodged a bullet there!

    1. The CO2, human-caused global warming scenario is so laughable as to be beyond ridicule, almost. However, burning fossil fuels will not stave off the coming new glaciation period. Scientists know that for at least the last 2 million years there have been major glaciation period, call it an ice age, that last approximately 100 to 120 thousand year, with an interglacial warm period that lasts between 10 to 12 thousand years. We are at the end of the latest interglacial warm period. We will need all the fossil fuels we can get to keep us warm.

      1. Well, we ought to start saving as much as we can, as soon as we can, so we have enough for 10,000 years…..

  4. “According to some modeling results, a new grand minimum would lower temperatures by perhaps -0.2 to -0.3 degrees Celsius below what they would otherwise be. … Assuming that the University of Alabama in Huntsville global temperature trend of +0.11 degree Celsius per decade is sustained, such a new grand minimum would counteract three decades of warming.”

    I’m guessing this would be a temporary phenomenon? Are sun spots cyclical?

    1. Yes and yes, or so the article suggests.

    2. “Since 1901, the average surface temperature across the contiguous 48 states has risen at an average rate of 0.13?F per decade (see Figure 1).
      Average temperatures have risen more quickly

      since the late 1970s

      (0.26 to 0.43?F per decade).

      IF ACCURATE and most folks who have studied the data, say
      the Mini-Ice age data
      is a computer model with Man,y Many, weaknesses.
      (( ( I thought You ALL didn’t believe in computer models??) ))

      .but if It occurs..
      ..It will NOT be noticeable..
      ..but may reverse only a few years of Man Made Global Warming based on the REAL data of current Global Warming increased heating rates.

  5. Regardless of whether average annual temps go up, go down, cycle, or hold steady, there remains a universal scientific consensus that we MUST ACT NOW to avert catastrophic global warming, else tens of millions of American will die within 20 years, or 25. Maybe 30. All your children will die. Can we afford to sacrifice these precious children?

    1. Can we afford to sacrifice these precious children?

      Depends. Are they going to pay my Social Security and Medicare? Yes? Then we cannot afford to sacrifice them.

      No? Fuck ‘um.

      1. There’s a naughty list somewhere here…

      2. A few decades ago, US Glacier National Part
        had 150 pristine glaciers
        to wonder at…..
        Today….
        ………just 25 remain…..so if you need some ice for your mixed drink….best go get it now….

    2. Can we afford to sacrifice these precious children

      Yes. It is the only way to keep Roman fleet and legions from our precious shores!

      1. +1 Priest of Baal

      2. Yes we can sacrifice these precious children…as long as they are a different color…..

        after all this is AMERICA….the home of the white

    3. Sentiment is appreciated…..but tens of millions of Americans will NOT die….world wide yes…
      …….because the POOR in low land nations will be subjected to unpredictable storm surges….with no where to run …. and no where to run when the dead spawn disease….
      and Mass migrations will lead to military responses from neighboring countries !

      In the US there is time to move and adapt though it will be at a huge cost. Miami for example is looking at sea walls and huge pumping systems to prepare….as is New York….Norfolk watches blocks of their downtown flood during high tides…..though that is a combination of high seas from man made global warming the ground sinking..(which is, in and of itself, related to Global Warming).

  6. Has anyone questioned Trump on all of the illegal ‘Mericans that will flood into Mexico, when the temperature falls?

    1. Really …….

      =D

    2. #buildthewallnow

      1. I thought George W. Bush promised to do just that….but his Conservative Administration let more in than any other Administration….period.

        Apparently you need extra BODIES when you start 2 wars.
        Neither of which did he bother to pay for….strapping the next admin. with Trillions of Debt….WE have to pay for.

        and
        then He
        screwed up the economy ….. tough to pay for food, when you unemployed or under employed.

    3. You could see the effect of it in the great artwork of our time, The Day After Tomorrow, so Trump just need point to it.

    4. Will they be surfing on icebergs?

  7. “New Little Ice Age”

    I dub thee, the Great Schadenfreeze.

    1. Don’t get too gleeful–a real temperature dip is bad news for a lot of people. God forbid we start going into an extended glaciation period. That’s a real disaster, unlike the fiction associated with global warming hysteria.

      1. Correct, global lowering of temperatures associated with glaciation periods…truly terrifying. And don’t forget it’s the inter-glaciation periods that are the blips.

        1. We’re still in an ice age. That’s the scary thing that the entire world has forgotten, despite all of the frozen water on both poles of the planet.

          1. Keep billions alive; use fossil fuels, plus nuclear reactors (greenest source of energy around).

            1. And lots of climate-controlled domes.

              1. As long as they have fiber optic cable, sign me up.

                1. Sure. Fiber-optic cables will dangle from the top of the dome. They will also do double-duty as ziplines, with which one can travel across the dome.

                  1. There’ll be no swooping through the air on those things in my dome…zoning will take care of that!

          2. Really? Pretty sure we’re in an interglacial period. The scary thing is that we WILL have another ice age.

            1. The Earth can get a whole lot warmer–and has–than it is now. An interglacial period is something that happens within an ice age. Glaciation is just the colder period. Relatively speaking, the planet is much cooler than usual.

              1. So, you’re saying that the first two graphs on my site at http://www.plusaf.com/global-w…..rming3.htm are wrong?

                Hmmmm… Got any better data? Sure looks like we’re NOT in an Ice Age now… but that’s my conclusion from looking at the temperature graphs.

      2. An easy myth to debunk

        This ‘impending mini ice age’ myth is incredibly easy to debunk.

        In fact it just takes asking one simple question ? if the sun is such a key driver of the Earth’s climate,
        then why has the entire planet (air, oceans, land, and ice) warmed rapidly over the past 60 years while solar activity has declined?

  8. Ideally, this wil help pinpoint the carbon forcing signal as primary, secondary ndaey, or minimal. By 2040 we’ll have almost 70 years of direct temperature and lower atmosphere composition data to go with about 5 sun cycles.

  9. Didn’t I read on here there’s been no net warming since 98? How does one counteract something that’s not there?

    1. Have you no faith?

    2. http://www.forbes.com/sites/pe…..mate-data/
      Because it’s said doesn’t mean it’s true.

      1. I have to say that given his laughable forgery and fraud, there is an irony in Gleick publishing an article titled “how to fool people”.

        Of course, no matter how much unethical science-deniers like Gleick stamp their feet, temperatures have been remarkably stable over the past 17 years despite the ever rising CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

        1. Not true and you would do yourself a favor by actually reading the article and perhaps consulting the links in it.

          1. Tony, I recall laughing at that article when it came out in 2012.

            It tries to paper over the fact that the rise in CO2 concentrations continues apace while tropospheric warming has slowed to a standstill by arguing about endpoints of where people take trends.

            The data is so noisy that one can manufacture any trend one wants by judiciously picking one’s endpoints. The forger Gleick tries to manufacture doubt about what the trend is by arguing that that is what’s happening.

            His long term temperature graph is also wrong; the 1930’s were much hotter than portrayed in that chart. I doubt it’s forgery on Gleick’s part – even though he is a forger, and thus has demonstrated he wouldn’t be above such chicanery – the GISS datasets are notorious for adjustments trying to manufacture the appearance of warming that doesn’t exist.

            I’m sure that the scientists working at the Goddard Space Flight Center just love having the scientactivists at the Goddard Institute of Space Science drag their reputation into the mud in an attempt to prevent the GISS guys from sinking below it.

            The forger Gleick’s problem is that he so desperately wants affluance and high standards of living to be a sin that he is willing to believe anything and tell any lie to ‘persuade’ people to live more holy and clean lives.

            1. I’d love a link to some of the prestigious scientific organizations that support the claim that warming has stopped.

              1. Does Nature work for you?
                http://www.nature.com/news/cli…..at-1.14525

                1. The date of your article is Jan., 2014. This just in…once that year was completed, 2014 exceeded the 1998 temp. Hence, no pause. Oh yeah, 2015 is already on track to go past 2014 in a big way.

                  So no, that article does nothing. It’s good to stay current.

                  1. Better go tell these scientists who published an article in the hiatus last week:
                    http://m.sciencemag.org/conten…..1.abstract

                    1. No need. Did you see the date “received” for publication? December 2014. Meaning the study was conducted before the year end, when it was proved there was no pause. You should read more carefully. Oh, and 2015? It will be even higher.

                      Keep trying

                    2. Let me put it this way, Adam. There was a hiatus before 2014 weighed in, but that was meaningless anyway since there were even longer pauses in the past 100 years. But just like now, those pauses ended. The hiatus is over. You’ll have to start counting after 2015, just like you did on 1998. But you’ll just be wrong once again.

                2. Adam… on one of the key graphs at that link, I noticed that the ‘acceleration of warming’ people point to most often seemed to start in the 1970s… coincident with massive moves towards pollution controls on everything, starting with automotive emissions.

                  For a long time I wondered if the bans on open burning of trash and leaves back in the ’50s and ’60s might have been the start of climate change, in that many particulates that are condensation nuclei for raindrops were essentially ‘starved’ out of the atmosphere…

                  Go figure… 🙂

              2. How about the IPCC?

                This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error.

                The IPCC draws the following conclusion:

                In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998?2012 as compared to the trend during 1951?2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend.

              3. Tony since you arent a climate scientist how can you claim warming hasnt stopped?

                1. I thought Tony was a climate scientist. He’s not? I’m dead serious. Shows what i know.

                2. Because facts say otherwise.

                3. and, of course, you can’t say otherwise.

                  You are no scientist.

                  Glacier National Park, USA, had 150 pristine glaciers a few decades ago….I went 6 years ago….only 25 REMAIN!

                  I WAS THERE and I CAN COUNT.

                  2000-2009 WAS THE HOTTEST DECADE in history
                  2014 is the hottest year.
                  2015 is well on its way to being the hottest year, in history….
                  but
                  what do you care?

              4. Shorter Tony: “I’d love a link to some principals to support your claim to scientific principles.”

                Just a question, Tony. What’s the highest math course you’ve taken?

                1. I ask this because some notions, that are obvious to those with a math and science background, seem to go right over your head. Still, you accuse those who disagree with you (as you did of John earlier today) of not believing in science as if you have a keen understanding of it when you obviously don’t.

                  1. The only mystery is why so many people with math and quasi-science backgrounds (you really mean engineers) are so prone to believing in obvious rightwing bullshit conspiracy theories instead of science. All of the denier bullshit amounts to “I’m right because I want to be,” regardless of the half-assed attempts to apply either Excel logic or glib misunderstandings of scientific principles. To answer your question I got a 5 on the AP calc test so I didn’t need to take any more math in college. Unlike a lot of the math and computer science and engineering majors, I decided to study a field that allowed me to learn how to properly think.

                    1. I decided to study a field that allowed me to learn how to properly think.

                      Which obviously didn’t quite work out for you. You should really demand a refund since you obviously didn’t get what you thought you payed for. Now if some point in the future you would actually like to discuss the science (data methods ect.) rather than playing the appeal to authority card (high priests of science) let us know.

                    2. I decided to study a field that allowed me to learn how to properly think.

                      Which obviously didn’t quite work out for you. You should really demand a refund since you obviously didn’t get what you thought you payed for. Now if some point in the future you would actually like to discuss the science (data methods ect.) rather than playing the appeal to authority card (high priests of science) let us know.

                    3. … and ‘that field’ was… ????
                      I got an EE degree from RPI (Rensselaer) many decades ago, and discovered that RPI actually taught ME how to analyze, extrapolate and interpolate data.
                      There’s a difference. “Thinking” varies a lot between and among people, and some can ‘see the big picture’ and infer from it and some can’t.
                      A close friend of mine out-IQ’s me by about 20-30 points, but often can’t ‘understand’ things that are ‘intuitively obvious to me.’

                      Engineers are no more prone to succumbing to ‘right wing bullshit’ than anyone else. There are few ‘right wing’ Republican Engineers in Congress, for example.. Most on both sides of the aisle are lawyers.

                      I was once on a jury where one of the attorneys couldn’t multiply a number by TEN in his head.

                      And there’s so much math beyond AP Calc that you barely scratched the subject if you stopped there. Fourier and Laplace and a few others were light years beyond “AP Calc.”

                      Try not to be a snob and try to cut back on your ‘down the nose’ airs of superiority.

                      Hell, if I wanted to generalize, I could/would accuse liberals of being well-grounded in “bad science”… and economics. So much of what they believe is not reflected in reality or history, yet they keep on a-believin’…

                      Cheers!

            2. Or Science:
              http://www.sciencemag.org/cont…..1.abstract

              1. And I suggest you guys read the links you posted and then read the most current science you can find on this topic. They do not support the claim that was made, and for the record this “new ice age” stuff is bullshit too.

                1. How can you determine it does not support the claim and the new ice age stuff is BS since you aren’t a climate scientist?

                2. Tony, regarding the New Ice Age Bullshit, please cool your jets.

                  It was obvious to me on scanning the posts regarding those ‘new findings’ that the mainscream media would, once again, be misinterpreting some pretty good facts, drawing erroneous conclusions and start blathering things that do nothing but scare people and promote lousy discussions…. much as they’ve done since Al Gore and his Immortal Hockey Stick.

                  The sun DOES appear to be returning to one of its many ‘quiet periods,’ but it’s the Number of Sunspots that’s decreasing, NOT the mean Solar Output. No, the sun’s output will NOT be dropping 60%! If it did, life on earth would be gone in a matter of months if not quicker.

                  However, if you take a dispassionate look at things like the Vostok Core graphs and some other features of what happens with the earth and sun, it becomes clear that there ARE some peaks and troughs that ARE correlated with mean temperatures on earth, and the sunspot cycle IS one of them!

                  I’ve collected some graphs (and cartoons) at http://www.plusaf.com/global-w…..rming3.htm on my site to demonstrate this, and the first two graphs can easily show correlations that lead to causation-type predictability.

                  continued….

                  1. continued…

                    In particular, one of my favorites is the Vostok Core data. A quick glance at the graph makes it clear that we ARE approaching the end of a ‘warm cycle’ for the earth, and that many Ice Age temperature drops happened from just about exactly the average temperatures we’re all experiencing now.

                    So until or unless you or anyone else can show that we’re NOT likely to be approaching the Next Great Ice Age, historical and verifiable data do NOT make a good case for continued global warming. An Ice Age… even a “small one” could be much more risky and damaging to the human race than continued ‘warming.’

                    Consensus is NOT the same as Truth or Reality… it’s just Agreement among a bunch of people, and as herds go, humans can just as well be stampeded in the wrong direction as many other species. History has proven that, over and over.

      2. Because it’s said doesn’t mean it’s true.

        Let me know when Glieck starts looking at data that hasn’t been tortured to comply.

    3. How does one counteract something that’s not there?

      Easy: with epicycles.

    4. Re: Freedom Frog,

      Didn’t I read on here there’s been no net warming since 98?

      The more accurate way to describe the situation is that the rate of increase of overall global temperatures (the average increase) has been much lower than estimated by Dr. Mann and the other charlatans.

      The charlatan part is also accurate. Real scientists don’t go around suing people for defamation.

  10. Can’t say they didn’t warn us that Climate Change Catastrophe was coming!

    1. WE DIDN”T LISTEN!

  11. Anyone else read Fallen Angels? I love it when Sci-Fi comes true.

    1. Missed that one by Pournelle and Niven and some other dude I’ve never heard of. Pournelle has written some great SF in fact prefer his stuff to Niven’s.

      Anyway, looks interesting, just bought the Kindle edition.

    2. Yep, read that one long ago and was going to make reference to it many column-inches above here. It IS science fiction, but really does a great job of addressing the way humans tend to over-react to stimuli… 🙂

  12. Mr. Bailey.

    “New Little Ice Age May Counteract Global Warming”

    IMHO. The impact that all biological actors on our planet consuming resources, and the current fluctuations in our suns activity will not have the predictable effect, that the title of this article claim’s.

    However.

    Private entities are quicker to adapt to changes than a government. I am sure we agree on this.

    =)

    1. YOU for got to mention that the sun has been going thru 60 years of relative lower energy cycle….and Man Made Global Warming has continued to spike temps up and up and up and up

      2000-2009 was the HOTTEST DECADE, ever
      2014 the HOTTEST year
      2015 well on its way to the HOTTEST YEAR

      and

      THE MINI ICE AGE you speak of is based on a COMPUTER MODEL……you hate all the others, but this one, with all its weaknesses, is believable…..because it agrees with YOU!!!! ?????

    1. Filthy casul.

  13. “..such a new grand minimum would counteract three decades of warming.”

    Oh my god — another mini ice age. It will be as cold as it was way back in the ………….1980s. Wait, what?

    1. NOPE…..you have to use a century long average temp increase to conclude that point.

      But temps have been going up since 1970 at a rate 2.5 to 3.0 times that rate…..soooo

      your point would be that Global Warming will be set back….just a few years…not even a decade.

      and,
      of course, that disregards the huge amount of heat stored in the ocean depths which will keep going on.

  14. The Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum are two very different things. The Maunder Minimum was a brief period of time that occurred in the middle of the period known as the Little Ice Age, during which time temperatures did get unusually cold, with the prevailing theory being that it was caused by a drop in sunspots. But again, it happened in the middle of the Little Ice Age. It did not cause it. The Little Ice Age was a larger event that started (depending on who you talk to) from 1350-1550 (the Maunder Minimum didn’t begin until 1645) and ran until the 1800’s.

  15. As someone who enjoys cold weather, I’m down with this.

    I hope it also means more rainy summers like this one. I went mushroom picking yesterday and it was incredible.

    Finally, presuming any of this actually pans out, it would mean a temporary reprieve. How long is the minimum suppose to last? Eventually solar output would increase again.

    1. Eventually solar output would increase again.

      Actually the more eventual trend is downward here as well.

      Morels, right? I didn’t notice any significant uptick in this year’s crop.

      1. No, the long term trend is for a star’s luminosity to increase with age, at least during Hydrogen-burning (aka while on the main sequence).

        Chanterelles and black trumpets. Someone said we’ve had 43 straight days with significant rainfall here in WV. I believe it. Seems to be ideal conditions.

  16. *puts another lump of Illinois coal in fire to save the Earth

  17. The ironies that would come from a new ice age would be intense. “Save the earth! Burn more coal!”

    Even a little drop in temperatures would cause to greenies to seethe. “I wanted my climate apocalypse now!!”

  18. It is highly apropros that Reason should cap its Trumpapalooza with an article about climate. Trump is nothing of not the Al Gore of the immigration debate. The hysteria over illegal immigration is a carbon copy of the hysteria over climate change.

  19. I really shouldn’t be surprised that this abortion of an idea emanated from DC. I just never knew that they had a Dept of SWPL.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    1. Bah. wrong thread.

      1. Just got back from two weeks holiday in the UK. “Rush Hour” traffic in London is beyond belief. It can take 1/2 hour to drive from Heathrow to the edge of London and another hour to drive to the Tower Bridge.

        As our driver pointed out, Londoners established a ‘rush hour tax’ on every car that enters the central city between something like 7am and 6pm…. somewhere around $30USD PER DAY!.
        Cross the ‘border’ twice? Pay twice.

        Traffic jams and parking impossibility have not abated ONE BIT since that ‘solution’ was implemented. But traffic signals are all over the place and a casual observation will conclude that most of them are NOT set to enhance transit but to punish it.

        Somewhere between the Law of Unintended Consequences and the General Law of Stupid “Solutions.”

        Massive Fail. But hey, what else is Government good at?

  20. Considering that there’s been no “global warming” for closing on two decades now despite continuing upward acceleration in the Keeling curve, there’s more than sufficient proof that anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on global or regional climates, meaning that this coming solar minimum won’t be mitigating any CO2-driven “greenhouse gas” phenomena (for which there continues to be no statistically significant supporting evidence), but rather a truly profound “Little Ice Age” drop in global average temperatures which will impose far greater suffering than any equivalent warming could ever have inflicted.
    .
    Cold kills, and to maintain the “man-made climate change” fraud in the face of what we know to be coming more than sufficiently justifies public lynchings.

  21. Let me put it this way, Adam. There was a hiatus before 2014 weighed in, but that was meaningless anyway since there were even longer pauses in the past 100 years. But just like now, those pauses ended. The hiatus is over. You’ll have to start counting after 2015, just like you did on 1998. But you’ll just be wrong once again.

    1. We can always count on Jackass to bring the stupid.

      2014 was not significantly different from two other years of the last 17 during the plateau (not hiatus or pause, those terms imply the future will be warmer), and is within the noise of a constant value for that time period.

      Yes there have been other plateaus, eg from 1940-1975. During each of these the CO2 concentration has continually increased in a monotonic fashion. On its face this observation demonstrate that factors other than CO2 are more important in determining climate.

      The most accurate data are from satellites. These sample the entire globe uniformly and repeatedly. ALL the other data are subject to much, much higher error – simply because the measurements are not uniformly distributed and are subject to local variations (ie heat islands, land use changes, etc.)

      None of the 103 CO2-based models can fit the T profile for the satellite era (since 1979), and in fact ALL are off by at least 2 standard deviations, and ALL are too high. Thus, one can say with 97.5% certainty that all are wrong. And ALL don’t come close to fitting the T data for the past 150 years.

      One model fits the data since 1850 – Dan Pangborn’s – which uses ONLY sunspots and ocean cycles. It is probably wrong, but the best to date. Some models based largely on atmospheric heat transfer have been proposed, but I am not yet convinced those are valid.

      1. Oberlin professor, and former member of the National Science Board
        (under Presidents Reagan
        and
        George H.W. Bush). He searched for all studies published in 2013 that mentioned “global warming,” “global climate change,” or “climate change,” and found 10,885 of them.

        Powell combed through the papers and found only two that rejected the idea that humans are responsible for climate change.

        “On the one side, we have a mountain of scientific evidence, on the other, ideology and arm-waving,” Powell writes.

        His analyses of the research in earlier years found similar results.

        Some climate change deniers refuse to be moved by the ever-growing “mountain of scientific evidence.”
        But before having a knee-jerk reaction to Powell’s findings, consider what they mean, suggests Ashutosh Jogalekar at Scientific American:

        I understand as well as anyone else that consensus does not imply truth but I find it odd how there aren’t even a handful of scientists who deny global warming presumably because the global warming mafia threatens to throttle them if they do. It’s not like we are seeing a 70-30% split, or even a 90-10% split. No, the split is more like 99.99-0.01%.

        Isn’t it remarkable that among the legions of scientists working around the world, many with tenured positions, secure reputations and largely nothing to lose, not even a hundred

  22. I feel a tad skeptical of this report after reading about it on a much less credible website. I do not mean to accuse anyone of knowingly misguiding anyone else, but I feel this claim needs further research.

  23. The Little Ice Age may counteract actual warming without us having to use chemtrails for cooling, but will not counteract the amount of CO2 being absorbed by the oceans. This means that the ocean will continue to die from acidifcation. This is not helpful. Calling it Global Warming is not helpful, as it only identifies part of the problem, leading to incorrect solutions and more problems.

    1. How did the oceans not die when the Earth’s atmosphere had CO2 concentrations between 1000-2000/ppm for millions of years?

      “Think of it as ‘Evolution in Action'”…

  24. I’ll wait to see how the ‘warming alarmists’ respond to this.

  25. Jonathon: “I’ll wait to see how the ‘warming alarmists’ respond to this.”

    Tony wrote:

    They do not support the claim that was made, and for the record this “new ice age” stuff is bullshit too.

    There’s your answer.

  26. my buddy’s step-aunt makes $68 /hour on the laptop . She has been without a job for nine months but last month her check was $99350 just working on the laptop for a few hours. check my source
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  27. Just because you get lucky is no reason to stop being stupid. But wait! Pouring prehistoric carbon back into the atmosphere at a rate unprecedented in the billion plus year history of life on planet earth is not stupid. It’s suicidal.

    1. Update. The research by Zharkova analyzed magnetic waves in the sun which are known to correspond to sunspots. Zharkova NEVER mentioned a “little ice age”. The Maunder minimum was NOT a global phenomenon but was focused in Europe and may have be conflated with volcanic eruptions. Petro-propaganda is no substitute for facts.

  28. THE ICE AGE WILL SAVE US !
    THE SKY ISN’T FALLING IS IT?

    Last week, few people — even inside academic circles — had heard of Valentina Zharkova, a professor of mathematics at Northumbria University in England.
    *****name is plastered all over the Internet.
    That’s because she’s behind new research suggesting a
    “mini ice age” awaits Earth in the 2030s as the sun’s solar activity goes into a prolonged lull.

    **** Not surprisingly, climate-change deniers regurgitated the headline with gleeful gusto.****

    The only problem with this string of events is that
    **** the study’s premise might not be true.

    **. But it’s problematic when that science is misrepresented, flawed or even worse, dishonest.

    According to a number of climate experts, Zharkova’s work is at least two of those three things.

    In fairness, Zharokova’s study didn’t directly predict a miniature ice age.
    Her work focuses on solar activity.

    More accurately, Zharkova says the magnetic waves that cause sunspots exist as two divergent — and competing
    — frequencies.
    These frequencies will soon cancel each other out, she says, leading to a reduction in radiation hurled towards Earth.

    The organization sent out the press release that helped shine the spotlight on Zharokova’s research — which has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

    **She recently went on record questioning the consensus of anthropogenic global warming.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.