Earth could be hit by MINI ICE-AGE as Sun ‘hibernates’

[Mountain Man]

So, I can dust off those Weekly Readers I had when I was a kid that warned of the "coming ice age"?

It would seem so.

[Mountain Man]

Has anyone told Greta?

Don't you dare. She might have to cancel her pleasure cruise around the world on her luxury yacht and go back to school.

[rogue06]

How dare you!

00000000000000aaa3ca1.gif

[Starlight]

It's kinda sad to see the Murdoch owned media propagandizing the gullible in this way.

A quick google will take you to any number of articles debunking the OP. Seems to be a combination of the journalists misreporting the science and this particular scientist being a lone wolf in her views.

Bear in mind that in general when global warming is discussed as being a problem, the problem range under discussion is a 2 to 6 degree Celsius increase in temperatures. The 1 degree Celsius decrease that the OP suggests the sun might contribute temporarily would be a useful offset, but still a lot smaller than the 2 to 6 degree increase from global warming.

Here's a NASA article on the general subject from last year:

...the Sun is currently experiencing a low level of sunspot activity. Some scientists speculate that this may be the beginning of a periodic solar event called a “grand minimum,” while others say there is insufficient evidence to support that position...

Several studies in recent years have looked at the effects that another grand minimum might have on global surface temperatures. These studies have suggested that while a grand minimum might cool the planet as much as 0.3 degrees C, this would, at best, slow down (but not reverse) human-caused global warming. There would be a small decline of energy reaching Earth, and just three years of current carbon dioxide concentration growth would make up for it. In addition, the grand minimum would be modest and temporary, with global temperatures quickly rebounding once the event concluded.

Some people have linked the [historical] Maunder Minimum’s temporary cooling effect to decreased solar activity, but that change was more likely influenced by increased volcanic activity and ocean circulation shifts.

Moreover, even a prolonged “Grand Solar Minimum” or “Maunder Minimum” would only briefly and minimally offset human-caused warming.

[Cow Poke]

It's kinda sad to see the Murdoch owned media propagandizing the gullible in this way.....

Oh, quit being such a pompous killjoy.

[Sparko]

How dare you!

Well, first I thought about saying something humorous, and relevant. After thinking a bit I came up with "Has anyone told Greta" - then I had to decide if I should post that or not. After much zero consideration I dared to post it.

That's how.

[Mountain Man]

...this particular scientist being a lone wolf in her views.

"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world ... The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

-Michael Crichton

[mossrose]

"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world ... The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

-Michael Crichton

Is that from "State of Fear"?

[Leonhard]

I read her opinion, but I don’t think her argument is terribly strong. There isn’t much evidence for temperature correlation with one of the grand solar minimums. Mostly she uses the European small ice age, but almost all temperature reconstructions from a variety of proxies indicate that this was a local phenomenon https://web.archive.org/web/20060529044319/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm](source)[/url]

So the argument that future solar minimums will shift temperatures signicantly seems far fetched. Especially considering that cooling occurred during the Little Ice Age was less than a degree over two hundred years, and the heating we’ve seen since the seventies is already more than that.

It stands to reason that even if this phenomenon is real it won’t reverse the climate change we’re facing.

[rogue06]

Is that from "State of Fear"?

It comes from a speech he gave called "Aliens cause Global Warming" in 2003.

[Leonhard]

As for the Crichton quote, it is okay for a scientist to be a lone wolf, but in all the examples one would give where they are vindicated those lone wolves gave either better models or found new evidence.

[Mountain Man]

Is that from "State of Fear"?

It's from a talk he gave titled "Aliens Cause Global Warming".

[mossrose]

I know in the back of State of Fear he has a lot of notes about this stuff, but I haven't read it in a long time. Thanks.

[Juvenal]

So, the good Lord hath heard the whinings of the alarmists and hath set out to adjust the thermostat downwardly?

Daddy, why do you call him a goober? Well, sometimes it's the blundering ignorance, and sometimes it's the blundering ignorance attached to a dig.


A tenth of the time spent seeking out ways to look like an idiot repurposed to learning about what you're goobering about could take some serious stain out of your SB preacher rep.

Go ahead with the "no, you."

Because we both know it's just you, and that blundering counter is all ya got.

[Starlight]

"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world ... The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

-Michael Crichton

That doesn't strike me as accurate. There's nuance involved, but as a scientist myself I would say that quote is more false than true. The guy you're quoting seems to be an author, not a scientist.

In practice nearly always science builds on what has come before. Someone discovers something we can call A. Someone else uses A to discover something else, B. Someone else uses B to discover C. Someone else uses B and D to create D. In this way, sequential discoveries build on each other and are dependent on everyone knowing what came before. If, when eventually the time comes to discover Z, the person doing so will have built on all the previous discoveries. And if, by doing so they prove that discovery T was in some way wrong, and demonstrate that 'what everyone previously believed about T being correct' is wrong, they will have been able to do so precisely because all the other discoveries throughout the alphabet that they have relied on to demonstrate Z, were correct.