We Could Be Heading For A Mini Ice Age In 2030

Commodity Marketing

Tools

We Could Be Heading For A Mini Ice Age In 2030

Apr 12, 2019 | 01:05 1 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/environme...-ice-age-2030/ Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Apr 12, 2019 | 06:25 2 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
    Last edited by caseih; Apr 12, 2019 at 07:25.
    Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Apr 12, 2019 | 06:44 3
    Quote Originally Posted by caseih View Post
    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 ..... Reply With Quote
    Apr 12, 2019 | 06:53 4 Human caused global warming is only going to offset global cooling by approximately 1/6th according to Zharkova. Reply With Quote
    Apr 12, 2019 | 07:18 5
    Quote Originally Posted by Ache4Acres View Post
    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/environme...-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/environme...lobal-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? Reply With Quote
    Apr 12, 2019 | 07:25 6 "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."

    Name:  TvsTSI_med.jpg
Views: 584
Size:  29.3 KB
    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. Reply With Quote
    Apr 12, 2019 | 07:39 7 A whopping theoretical degree! Sound the alarm, it is obvious we are all going to die here. Reply With Quote
    Apr 12, 2019 | 07:39 8 https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201803
    Name:  201701-201712.jpg
Views: 577
Size:  19.9 KB Reply With Quote
    Apr 12, 2019 | 07:40 9 https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201803
    Name:  201801-201812.jpg
Views: 573
Size:  19.8 KB Reply With Quote
    Apr 12, 2019 | 07:42 10 https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201803
    Name:  201601-201612.jpg
Views: 572
Size:  19.5 KB Reply With Quote
    Apr 12, 2019 | 08:24 11
    Quote Originally Posted by dmlfarmer View Post
    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/environme...lobal-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. Reply With Quote
    Apr 12, 2019 | 08:31 12 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.
    Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Apr 12, 2019 at 08:36.
    Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Apr 12, 2019 | 08:41 13
    Quote Originally Posted by shtferbrains View Post

    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. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Apr 12, 2019 | 09:15 14
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    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. Reply With Quote
    Apr 12, 2019 | 10:30 15
    Quote Originally Posted by caseih View Post
    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 ??). Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Apr 12, 2019 | 10:57 16
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    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.
    You just used the word consensus again, it is a good thing I am patient with slow learners. After all, it only took a couple of years to explain to you that belief is not a part of the scientific method. Science is not a democracy. It only takes 1 piece of contrary evidence to disprove a popularly held theory. Reply With Quote
    Apr 12, 2019 | 11:01 17 All within the margin of variability in a chaotic non-linear non-determinant system. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Apr 12, 2019 | 11:53 18
    Quote Originally Posted by Horse View Post
    Speaking of heads up asses you do understand that weather goes on beyond your fence line (dont you ??).
    Tell that to 90 % of the world that doesnt have a stupid f$&king carbon tax so they can give millions to their buddies
    How has your carbon tax worked out for you last few years. Did you cool the world lol Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Apr 12, 2019 | 12:50 19
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    You just used the word consensus again, it is a good thing I am patient with slow learners. After all, it only took a couple of years to explain to you that belief is not a part of the scientific method. Science is not a democracy. It only takes 1 piece of contrary evidence to disprove a popularly held theory.

    Really! One piece of evidence can completely change the thousands if not millions of other pieces of current evidence that human caused climate change is real? If you believe that, then your understanding of science is limited.

    But hey, go ahead show us the one piece of evidence from a climate scientists that disproves human caused climate change. We are still waiting! Reply With Quote
    Apr 12, 2019 | 12:59 20
    Quote Originally Posted by shtferbrains View Post
    All the "retraction" did was minimize the sensationalizing of the original headline.
    If you believe that was all the retraction did I suggest you read both a lot closer. This is not a journalism or reporting by any stretch of the imagination. The writer, whoever it was, did not interview the researchers before writing the article and admits in the article "it was not possible to evaluate the research." It appears they based their story, and the misleading headline, on an article written in "The Telegraph" and does not even credit the writer of The Telegraph article.

    Second, we do not know if they called to interview the researcher after publication of that opinion piece or if the researcher called them to set the record straight and ask they write the retraction. But the important things to note that the researcher actually said were that the research did not bring up the impact on weather or climate. So this study of sunspots drew no conclusions about the impact on weather. When questioned, the researcher said that a climatic impact was POSSIBLE; not probable or if it was going to happen.

    Third, the most important statement made by the educated astrophysicist in the actual interview was: "We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening."

    Finally, I consider the first article nothing more than spin doctoring to present a preconceived position, typical of what happens in the climate debate. I note that the second article, in which there as a semblance of journalism by interviewing the researcher was shared 281 times. But the original story where there was no interviews and in fact they admit the research was not even evaluated, was shared 9954 times. No wonder facts get lost about climate change when such dubious reporting is used as proof of your position. Reply With Quote
    Apr 12, 2019 | 13:32 21 More weather is happening as we speak.

    Name:  Snow Cover April 11 19.jpg
Views: 372
Size:  21.0 KB Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Apr 12, 2019 | 13:40 22 Same as my on my fenceline lol
    Last edited by caseih; Apr 12, 2019 at 14:00.
    Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • fjlip's Avatar Apr 12, 2019 | 14:14 23
    Quote Originally Posted by farming101 View Post
    More weather is happening as we speak.

    Name:  Snow Cover April 11 19.jpg
Views: 372
Size:  21.0 KB
    Oh NO the climate is CHANGING! The sky is falling in 12 years or 20 or 50 or maybe a 100...adapt, adapt, adapt...is the only correct advice. All just guesses, NOTHING can be proven into the future, the past data is easy but all can be fudged for $$$$, fortune tellers? Reply With Quote
    fjlip's Avatar Apr 12, 2019 | 14:16 24
    Quote Originally Posted by jazz View Post
    All within the margin of variability in a chaotic non-linear non-determinant system.
    Why is all the doomsday estimates/guesses not given with a + or - % chance? Yes variability 1C is SFA.
    Regina is 5C warmer than me, and they are not burned up to cinders! Reply With Quote
    Apr 12, 2019 | 14:27 25
    Quote Originally Posted by shtferbrains View Post
    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.

    HER LIFE was proably on the line. The heat from ‘global warming’ has warped some brains. Reply With Quote
    Apr 12, 2019 | 16:53 26
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Really! One piece of evidence can completely change the thousands if not millions of other pieces of current evidence that human caused climate change is real? If you believe that, then your understanding of science is limited.

    But hey, go ahead show us the one piece of evidence from a climate scientists that disproves human caused climate change. We are still waiting!
    It is worse than I thought, you truly have no concept of how the scientific method actually works do you? If consensus was all that was required for a theory to be written in stone, the world would still believe ( note, this is the word believe used in the correct context) in creationism, an earth centric universe, animicules, alchemy, witches, bad blood, global cooling, human sacrifice to appease gods etc. etc. Do you want a lesson in the scientific method, it may be a good place to start, without that basic knowledge, the rest of the discussion is very much pointless?

    To quote Einstein, Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough! Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Apr 12, 2019 | 17:14 27
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    But hey, go ahead show us the one piece of evidence from a climate scientists that disproves human caused climate change. We are still waiting!

    Climate skeptics aren't making nay claims therefore we have no burden of proof. We simple doubt the science and not enough definitive evidence has been put forth, nor has any of the past predictions born out, therefore the theory is suspect until a tangible prediction is made from it that is shown to be true. Statue of Liberty under water by now was one. Ice free arctic was another. Reply With Quote
    fjlip's Avatar Apr 12, 2019 | 17:19 28 THEY think we NEED the 100 authors/97% of "climate" scientists to beat the LIE into us! All the doomsaying is really hard to "believe" without CONSTANT bombarding the public with another scary scenario. It is endless and so far NOTHING in 50 years Has come to pass! Hello little red hen...the sky NEVER fell! Reply With Quote
    Apr 12, 2019 | 17:22 29 Extremes for sure. Reply With Quote
    Apr 12, 2019 | 17:32 30
    Quote Originally Posted by newguy View Post
    Extremes for sure.
    Those extremes are normal for the prairies. Those numbers were hit in the 30s and 60s too. Reply With Quote