Buy Your Coat Now

keep in mind, these are "solar scientists"http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2015/07/11/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-in-just-15-years-scientists-say/2751436649025/

The article says the sun's "activity" will decrease by 60%. If it means the energy output will decrease by 60% that seems highly suspect. My guess is that sort of decrease would have far greater consequences than a few cold winters.

I think it means 60 percent fewer sunspots.

They called the original mini-ice-age the Maunder Minimum. There were some colder than normal years in Europe (where most of the record keeping took place) and a noted near absence of sunspots. I'm not at all sure what the connection is. A positive result was that the colder years resulted in slower growing (and thus denser) trees and the wood was superior for making violins. Stradivarius violins were made of this wood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

Won't those fewer sunspots mean more fire and therefore more heat?

I'm going to study that. I get the atmospheric linkage, I just disagree with the hysteria and doomsday narratives. polar bears will never drown, harbors have not disappeared, etc. water vapor and methane are far more important in the warming cycle than carbon but Co2 is the face on the Wanted poster.I need a better understanding of the solar role

Hey, your logic just adds to the paranoia and hysteria. We are in an age of conspiracy theories, zombies, and we love doomsday scenarios. Climate science thrives as a result. Solar science is now making in roads. Obviously, they need more funding.

Atmospheric science would gain more credibility if it stopped spewing all that doomsday crap. Even then, I think the models are not complete. There are just too many holes in the "whole" atmospheric presentations.

I took a little time to look deeper at this and find the link to be present but weak.I'm more concerned with methane. all these people eating cheeseburgers are the real culprit! did you know raising cattle and other livestock are considered under the umbrella of "Mans activities?" I was surprised and amused to find out how much methane a herd of farting cows produce. 57 Chevys have nothing on bovines when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions

GA! I know of a family in Idaho that has been gleaning over $200K per year in scientific grants for the last 19 years simply by monitoring how many times per day their cattle fart.

you might like this

http://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat-methane-CO2

Methane discharges and climate change is not as simple as the cow farts appear:

http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/wahlquistmethane.html

We are using the pasture land to get productive food. Otherwise we would till the land for some other crop. Seventy percent of farm land worldwide is simple pasture land. Cattle are an important food that helps to feed the world on land that may otherwise be wasted. Of course now we grow crops for biofuels...I don't see that helping anything.

Methane is reported to be about 28% all from cows. However, there is no monitoring of methane discharges from undersea slides or earthquakes. And there are many happening everyday. The release of hydrates, natural locked in methane, is not measured or even fully quantified. I think the cattle discharges will pale beside these discharges but that is conjecture at this point. Every year we discover a new natural leak of methane off a continental shelf or mid ocean ridge. The Storrega slide between Norway and Iceland occurred 8000 years ago but was only discovered in the past decade or so. These discharges are hard to locate and quantify. There are no smoking chimneys of methane and the discharges are spread widely. Often measured as CO2 because the CH4 is broken down by oxidation before it reaches the atmosphere.

Now think of the more recent slides such as in Japan and Indonesia. No body to date has made any quantification of amount of methane such slides release. The Indian ocean has very unstable plates underlying it and we can expect more of the same.

I will worry about cattle farts once we have eliminated these other major factors.

did you notice this statement?

the negative effect on the climate of Methane is 23 times higher than the effect of CO2. the zealots have cO2 ON their wanted poster.....and want to tax the hell out of it to slow it down so they can "save the planet" I don't think they're hitting the target squarely

From Wiki:

"When ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:^[16]

In addition to the main greenhouse gases listed above, other greenhouse gases include sulfur hexafluoride,hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons (see IPCC list of greenhouse gases). Some greenhouse gases are not often listed. For example, nitrogen trifluoride has a high global warming potential (GWP) but is only present in very small quantities.^[23]"

My Argument is that methane is still poorly quantified in terms of natural v anthropogenic. Even IPCC admits the problem but keeps plugging in the human factor and limiting the natural factor. If nature contributes more than human methane, all the tax in the world will not help. If the politicians explore the truths and find out there is a lot more natural carbon contribution that tax will not correct; How are they going to justify the tax?

Solar Methane, we are not supposed to question.

I've got mine. Field tested in Minnesota.

I'll finally get to wear one of the coats I have....

whose a cold doggy

LOL cute

Yeah, refreshments coming our way!

Stop quivering in the heat. Its gonna be fine!

I'm not sure. when Boston was smashing snowfall records this year at least one person on this forum told me it was due to intensifying storm activity caused by global warming. so it was getting colder because it was getting hotter. convoluted ...as I've stated many times I'll just keep relying on the sat data, it has no agenda

Just look outside. Much more reliable.

Not to speak of the southern hemisphere which seems to enjoy a cold winter.

They quiver in the sun.

Ups I should not bring the sun into this. We might be cross talking from another thread....

Thanks Fred.

I look forward to your postings. The Farside of CR4.

Enjoy the cold spell, I know I will.

News about an imminent 'mini ice age' is trending - but it's not true

LIES!!

I see that the "climate deniers" course has done well for you.

Did you even read the piece before declaring it invalid?

Your only source is the "Daily Mail" which reported, and I use the term loosely, on a single article that has not been published in any peer reviewed scientific publications.

Sensationalism trumps science, again!

De-nile is a river in India.

my highly informative course is 8 weeks. and science always kicks butt

as for the solar thing....I'm still looking at it but the records don't move me at all

ash from volcanic eruptions

cold spell in Europe

De-nile extends to some place, but not India.

Volcanoes cause cooling? Volcanoes have occurred in recent history and big ones but we still have climate warming. Perhaps some cooling could occur on a temporary basis like a year or two but not for the period of time of an incident like the Maunder minimum. The article is a very poor attempt at solar denial. Why was the Maunder minimum global and not restricted to Europe. Some explanations for small variations can be explained but we have a real poor understanding of solar activity and the role in climate change.

For the record we have other periods of low solar activity and they also correspond to cool periods globally. Coincidence. Hmm, I think not. However, I do remain open to all science. That is the problem with climate science, it is so steeped in climate politics committed by too many people with no knowledge or vested interests. These vested interests could be the oil industry as well as environmental zealots. How knows, they may even be people with the need to look for funding. Sarcasm off. We as CR4 science and engineering advocates must be open to all aspects.

At least you are paying attention.

A mini ice age is a really worrying possibility, unlike GW. My proposal is to apply a new tax to all those disgraceful cases of energy saving. We already tax fossil fuel energy consumption, so we will have both cases covered. The only thing left is to tax all neutral activities that neither consume nor save energy, so we also cover the case that nothing of the above proves to be true. Problem solved. S.M.