Forget global warming, ‘Little Ice Age’ to begin in 10 years
Global warming may mean beachfront property in Macon someday, but the Earth may have to go through a cold spell first.
Polar bears would have had plenty to eat if they'd made it to London during the late 1600s.
Fox Nation sums up the complicated science with this low-key headline: Global Warming Be Damned, We Might Be Headed for a Mini Ice Age
According to the pocket-protector crowd at the annual meeting of the solar physics division of the American Astronomical Society, the sun, due to reduced sunspot activity, is going to be a bit cooler soon.
When? Maybe as soon as 2021, or never.
How much cooler will the Earth get if sunspot activity decreases? No one knows exactly, but probably a fraction of a degree Celsius, which probably isn’t enough to lure another NHL franchise to Atlanta.
But, the last time such a thing happened, in the late 17th Century, the good folks of London were ice skating on the Thames and villages in the Swiss Alps were destroyed by expanding glaciers.
Wired Magazine throws ice water on the heated discussion with this exciting headline: Sunspot Drop Won’t Cause Global Cooling
At most, reduced sunspots will offset rising global temperatures for a few years, perhaps a couple decades, said NASA climatologist David Rind in the Wired article.
“To point to this as something that could in any way ameliorate greenhouse gas warming is folly,” said climatologist Michael Mann of Penn State University.
I guess I’ll keep the snow skis in the attic.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
117 comments Add your comment
Lochness Munster
June 18th, 2011
12:50 am
Just thought you might like to know that it’s not true that “everybody” was warning of an ice age in the 70’s. By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational ‘Ice Age’ stories in the press that so many people tend to remember. The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet.
The actual figures are as follows: Out of 68 papers published between 195 and 1979 only 7 of them predicted cooling. 45 predicted warming and the rest were nuetral.
Lochness Munster
June 18th, 2011
12:55 am
You might also like to know that it has been known as ‘Climate Change’ in scientific circles since at least 1988. This was the year that the IPCC was formed. As you must know the IPCC stand for the ‘Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE.
The term Global Warming is the one that was largely used by the media not the scientists. Although, of course it is also fairly accurate. The simplest way to understand it is that Global Warming causes the Climate Change.
It’s also not widely known that it was in fact the Bush Administration who were the main instigators in the media switching from GW to CC as Bush thought that CC sounded less alarming than GW.
All this is a matter of record.
Lochness Munster
June 18th, 2011
1:02 am
OOps! Sorry – that was meant to read ” Out of 68 papers published between 1965 and 1979 only 7 of them predicted cooling. 45 predicted warming and the rest were nuetral”
If anyone wants to check all the papers and their authors are listed here.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
There were also articles in the press about global warming, for examplem on August 14, 1975, the New York Times ran, “Warming Trend Seen in Climate.” In this article, the New York Times discusses two scientific articles that focus on the overall climate patterns. It covers the debate over global cooling due to aerosols and global warming due to CO2 increases:
“…Dr. [Wally] Broecker’s argument is that the present cooling trend in the north will be reversed as more and more carbon dioxide is introduced into the atmosphere by the burning of fuels…”
There were many more but the “We’re all going to freeze” sensationlist nonsense sold more newspapers. Pretty much what todays nonsense is about too. The science says that even if we do enter a new Maunder Minimum it won’t make any noticable diference to the warming trend.
Lochness Munster
June 18th, 2011
2:02 am
“…When I was taking geology in college back in 79 they were talking about the coming “Ice Age” back then…”
No ‘they’ weren’t, Not unless your college was of an extremely poor standard. Only 7 papers between 1965 and 1979 projected ‘global cooling’ whereas 45 projected global warming.
“The global warming fiasco, started by dubious scientists/professors eager for research grant money came next..”
Not even close. Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists have long understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun
A scientist called Tyndall finaly figured out that this was true and found several gases in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859.
Yep eighteen fifty nine.
His laboratory work identified water vapour and – yep – CO2 – among others.
Your college should have taught you (as my Scottish University did me) that a scientist name of Svante Arrhenius reported his formulae for calculating the effect of same in a peer-reviewed paper called
“On the Influence of Carbonic Acid [now called CO2] in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground”
Published in the Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science
Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276.
Yep – eighteen ninety six.
Guess he started the whole ‘hoax’ just to get research grants eh?
You people continualy make utterly absurd claims which merely demonstrate your total ignorance of the subject that you nevertheless feel able to blithely pontificate upon. Not only is this an insult to true scientists who have spent a lifetime studying climae change but you do yourself and your political masters no favours by endlessly parroting such baseless nonsense.
I suggest that you begin by reading a basic history of climate science, begining with Fouier in 1820. You never know – you might even learn something.
Lochness Munster
June 18th, 2011
2:13 am
mememine69
“…..How can human CO2 be so powerful as to cause unstoppable warming ………….”
Just to let you know that this ‘Mememine’ is very likely a bot. It has posted this same irrelevant paragraph (and one or two others) in dozens of different blogs and comment threads that have the keywords ‘climate’ or ‘global warming’ in the headline. It has been doing this for months. I often run accross it. Even if it is a real person it is pointless to engage it.
Just thought I would save some people a bit of time.
In answer to it’s inane question of course – ENSO is a cycle and is nuetral. Kindergarten stuff.
Jerry Springer Answers to Frontline Questions
June 20th, 2011
6:36 pm
Thank you Lockness for a rare Frontline answer. Still, the Jerry Springers hold the floor and carry the vote. Surely, We Are Doomed!
KA
June 23rd, 2011
2:24 pm
Time to buy that oceanfront condo in Costa Rica!