Mini-Ice Age Coming?

[kannot]

Reduce the population, reduce man's impact- seems simple to me.

Are you offering? Do you have a short list of family members you would like 'reduced' to lessen the impact on the global environment?

Are you saying that I should kill my family?

I haven't had any children and my sister hasn't had any children. My wife hasn't any children. I think I and my family are doing our bit to reduce the population.

Cultures that believe it is OK to have 7 or more children per woman need to be educated that it's not a good thing to do anymore.

So that'll be all Catholics then and Muslims

[kannot]

That solar activity influences temperature and has an effect on climate change.

Short answer, NO!

Long answer, NO!

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that low Solar Activity would have any significant effect on Global Warming let alone influence Climate Change in any significant way. Even the researchers in the article you posted made that quite clear:

"Predictions suggest a prolonged period of low sun activity over the next few decades, but any associated natural temperature changes will be much smaller than those created by human carbon dioxide emissions, say researchers."

Did you actually read the article?

so if we turned off the sun nothing would happen eh

Just read an old newspaper report of the Maldive islands going underwater..............dated.............1869!!! Hey theyr'e still there

If the Sun switched off in 8.4 minutes we would all be dead. A low Solar minimum similar to the Muander Minimum would be the same as reducing an oven temperature by 0.02^OC your cake would be just fine.

Just like the miniscule 0.6-0.8 c warming since 1860 then

[AZBill]

Better tell Al Gore to shut down his yachts and private planes!

[Somtamme]

CC deniers ignore basic physics that all GHGs absorb IR radiation, plus their warming potentials will last for generations. Anyone with who still chooses to emit large quantities of these emissions does so to the detriment of the future. Plus reducing these emissions will bring with it a commensurate improvement in health due to reduced particulate matter emissions (PM10). PM10 is thought to have a linear relationship to life years lost. So whilst the time-scales for effects of CC are long lived, the impacts on health are much more immediate.

[thaibeachlovers]

Reduce the population, reduce man's impact- seems simple to me.

Are you offering? Do you have a short list of family members you would like 'reduced' to lessen the impact on the global environment?

Are you saying that I should kill my family?

I haven't had any children and my sister hasn't had any children. My wife hasn't any children. I think I and my family are doing our bit to reduce the population.

Cultures that believe it is OK to have 7 or more children per woman need to be educated that it's not a good thing to do anymore.

So that'll be all Catholics then and Muslims

Is Romney Catholic? That guy needs to have a vasectomy.

[up2u2]

Well you can't very well agree with the opinion portion of that article and at the same time disagree with the scientific portion of it

They made a study and found a clear link between historical climate changes and solar activity. This is a published scientific study.

This reminds me of the time I tried to teach my pet budgies Lowry and Bronsted Latin. Very frustrating for me and them they just couldn't get their little beaks around it.

Small regional climate NOT Global climate. Same as Maunder Minimum only effected a small region of Europe and North America.

Well, now we have introduced the word global into the argument because you needed a little straw man to cover your retreat. And a little bit of calling me a bird brain just to make yourself feel a bit better. You Ok now?

I asked you a clear and easily understood question and you answered it in a way that explains you are not here to tell the truth.

Let me ask you this. Do you believe then that changes in solar activity only creates climate change in the Atlantic?

Seems like you have gone down a Climate Denier 'rabbit hole'. I may have to send down a Ferret with a Phd to chase you out.

I don't think there has been one post where I haven't referred to GLOBAL Warming. Regional warming / cooling really isn't relevant. You do realise GW stands for GLOBAL Warming?

Where did I refer to you as a 'bird brain'? Never, I do not engage in personal attacks or name calling. I want a 'hall pass' on Roy Spencer though because he IS an idiot.

"Do you believe then that changes in solar activity only creates climate change in the Atlantic?" Is that a position taken in the Article? What does the Article conclude on that point?

Edited September 7, 2015 by up2u2

[kannot]

CC deniers ignore basic physics that all GHGs absorb IR radiation, plus their warming potentials will last for generations. Anyone with who still chooses to emit large quantities of these emissions does so to the detriment of the future. Plus reducing these emissions will bring with it a commensurate improvement in health due to reduced particulate matter emissions (PM10). PM10 is thought to have a linear relationship to life years lost. So whilst the time-scales for effects of CC are long lived, the impacts on health are much more immediate.

Im pretty sure wars will have a much more serious effect than ANY global warming on lifespans.

[up2u2]

If the Sun switched off in 8.4 minutes we would all be dead. A low Solar minimum similar to the Muander Minimum would be the same as reducing an oven temperature by 0.02^OC your cake would be just fine.

Just like the miniscule 0.6-0.8 c warming since 1860 then

Take 120 thousandths of a gram of cyanide and get back to me. Actually you wont be getting back to me. Okay how about 10 strands of Ebola Virus and get back to me. Damn, unlikely you will be getting back to me. Miniscule empirical amount does not equate to slight effect.

Let me do a quick calculation:

average global temperature rise since 1998 say about 0.2^OC times 'x' divided by 7 carry the 3 minus the coefficient of the hypotenuse plus 46 equals.

Okay got it:

Since 1998 the Earth has absorbed heat equivalent too 2,267,605,900 Hiroshima nuclear bombs and counting.

Holy guacamole that's a lot of heat.

Edited September 7, 2015 by up2u2

[up2u2]

Better tell Al Gore to shut down his yachts and private planes!

Why? that will have no effect on GW / CC.

[up2u2]

CC deniers ignore basic physics that all GHGs absorb IR radiation, plus their warming potentials will last for generations. Anyone with who still chooses to emit large quantities of these emissions does so to the detriment of the future. Plus reducing these emissions will bring with it a commensurate improvement in health due to reduced particulate matter emissions (PM10). PM10 is thought to have a linear relationship to life years lost. So whilst the time-scales for effects of CC are long lived, the impacts on health are much more immediate.

Im pretty sure wars will have a much more serious effect than ANY global warming on lifespans.

'pretty sure'? Excellent, we can all rest easy. Hold on, before I put my feet up with a cup of cocoa, just one question, what do you base that theory on actually?

[canuckamuck]

Your budgies speak Latin and your ferret had a PhD. Sounds like wonderland can I call you Alice?

I posited a question to you as to whether or not solar activity has an effect on temperature and climate change. You said no, and then you tried to qualify your error by claiming it can only effects local climate change. So you can't now say you were always discussing Global climate change. You added the concept of local climate change.

Now please answer my question and quit searching for a cute exit.

[up2u2]

ALSO this HILARIOUS video, especially at 1.35 when he says 'look at the children' the global warming bullshit hysterical perspective REALLY IS dismantled by such a simple presentation. WHY would you think human activity has ANY effect or any significant effect on cooling/ warming trends because the global warming industry puts up a bunch of graphs. and watch the other one he has up [climate justice for all] at 4.50 where he mocks what this 97% consensus really is.

I had absolutely no idea what this guy was going on about. There was some odd comparison made but I just couldn't fathom it.

Just a small entrée before the main meal. These type of misrepresentations of Greenland's Ice Cores first went viral in the Climate Denier echo chamber to attack Michael Mann and the 'Hockey Stick' theory. This guy seems to have morphed the strategy to confuse the issue on Global Warming.

I question that graph. It is titled "Greenland dome - Years before present" Well there was no "Dome" Ice Core taken in Greenland there was the "South Dome" Ice Core but it was only drilled to 80M this graph is a dead ringer for Greenland Ice Core Project (GISP2) that was drilled to a depth of 3000M.

The escalator temperature graph is the Global Surface Temperature Anomaly from 1970 - 2015. All good no problem there.

The Main Meal:

The Greenland Ice Core Data and similar ice cores from Vostok in Antarctica are referred to as Proxy Data. They present information by Proxy.

This is really crucial: The Greenland Ice Core data is SPECIFIC to GREENLAND and GREENLAND ONLY!!!!

So this dope has compared 'raw' temperature data (not anomaly data) SPECIFIC to GREENLAND with GLOBAL Surface Temperature Anomaly data. They have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other they are in no way comparable.

It would be like taking the temperature in your Ice Box in the kitchen for a week and saying this is the GLOBAL Surface Temperature Anomaly for that week. Absolutely ridiculous. It is like comparing a Caraway seed with a coconut.

'movieplay' I have seen some pretty stupid Climate Denier drivel but seriously this one takes the cake. In GW / CC there are some absolutely basic key facts you must understand otherwise you just get totally punked by Climate Denier propaganda mate. In this case:

Raw temperature data - Temperature Anomaly data - GLOBAL data - Specific REGIONAL data. These are simple basic terms used in GW / CC.

I am not going to even Grade this section of your post, I am going to shred it.

[movieplay]

there is a similar graph on page 1 of this thread, so the point of the satire is that it has warmed and cooled at faster rates than we are experiencing now.

[up2u2]

Your budgies speak Latin and your ferret had a PhD. Sounds like wonderland can I call you Alice?

I posited a question to you as to whether or not solar activity has an effect on temperature and climate change. You said no, and then you tried to qualify your error by claiming it can only effects local climate change. So you can't now say you were always discussing Global climate change. You added the concept of local climate change.

Now please answer my question and quit searching for a cute exit.

Apology accepted:

Solar Activity Influences Climate Change:

"Changes in the sun’s energy output may have led to marked natural climate change in Europe over the last 1000 years, according to researchers at Cardiff University."

"The results of these analyses revealed large and abrupt temperature and salinity changes in the north-flowing warm current on time-scales of several decades to centuries. Cold ocean conditions were found to match periods of low solar energy output, corresponding to intervals of low sunspot activity observed on the surface of the sun. Using a physics-based climate model, the authors were able to test the response of the ocean to changes in the solar output and found similar results to the data." - See more at: http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/earth/spaceship-earth/solar-activity-influences-climate-change/#sthash.Y2AmhCYh.dpuf

I await Upu2's next chart. Please can you find a new one. you have posted some of those so often they should be your avatar.

And I do apologize for not being more involved. Can't be helped. Busy times. Maybe next week.

"Predictions suggest a prolonged period of low sun activity over the next few decades, but any associated natural temperature changes will be much smaller than those created by human carbon dioxide emissions, say researchers."

A_A_FrostFair_3.jpg

Move on nothing to see here. Next

You keep serving em up and I'll keep knocking em out of the park

My first response to your post is the graph that shows effect of Grand Solar Minimum on GLOBAL Warming

[kannot]

If the Sun switched off in 8.4 minutes we would all be dead. A low Solar minimum similar to the Muander Minimum would be the same as reducing an oven temperature by 0.02^OC your cake would be just fine.

Just like the miniscule 0.6-0.8 c warming since 1860 then

Take 120 thousandths of a gram of cyanide and get back to me. Actually you wont be getting back to me. Okay how about 10 strands of Ebola Virus and get back to me. Damn, unlikely you will be getting back to me. Miniscule empirical amount does not equate to slight effect.

Let me do a quick calculation:

average global temperature rise since 1998 say about 0.2^OC times 'x' divided by 7 carry the 3 minus the coefficient of the hypotenuse plus 46 equals.

Okay got it:

Since 1998 the Earth has absorbed heat equivalent too 2,267,605,900 Hiroshima nuclear bombs and counting.

Holy guacamole that's a lot of heat.

Shit! Im absolutely terrified, can u send me that cyanide, u may as well with all the global warming hysteria we're all doomed, not sure if i can sleep tonight or not now.

[kannot]

CC deniers ignore basic physics that all GHGs absorb IR radiation, plus their warming potentials will last for generations. Anyone with who still chooses to emit large quantities of these emissions does so to the detriment of the future. Plus reducing these emissions will bring with it a commensurate improvement in health due to reduced particulate matter emissions (PM10). PM10 is thought to have a linear relationship to life years lost. So whilst the time-scales for effects of CC are long lived, the impacts on health are much more immediate.

Im pretty sure wars will have a much more serious effect than ANY global warming on lifespans.

'pretty sure'? Excellent, we can all rest easy. Hold on, before I put my feet up with a cup of cocoa, just one question, what do you base that theory on actually?

The same bs as mans global warming effect, anyway you cant say theory as Darwin was wrong apparently and the moon landing theory also didnt happen etc blah blah so maybe you wont be able to have that cocoa after all

[up2u2]

Im pretty sure wars will have a much more serious effect than ANY global warming on lifespans.

'pretty sure'? Excellent, we can all rest easy. Hold on, before I put my feet up with a cup of cocoa, just one question, what do you base that theory on actually?

The same bs as mans global warming effect, anyway you cant say theory as Darwin was wrong apparently and the moon landing theory also didnt happen etc blah blah so maybe you wont be able to have that cocoa after all

So no evidence just a random thought bubble. That's okay I hadn't really settled down to a hot cocoa I may have an espresso instead.

[up2u2]

If the Sun switched off in 8.4 minutes we would all be dead. A low Solar minimum similar to the Muander Minimum would be the same as reducing an oven temperature by 0.02^OC your cake would be just fine.

Just like the miniscule 0.6-0.8 c warming since 1860 then

Take 120 thousandths of a gram of cyanide and get back to me. Actually you wont be getting back to me. Okay how about 10 strands of Ebola Virus and get back to me. Damn, unlikely you will be getting back to me. Miniscule empirical amount does not equate to slight effect.

Let me do a quick calculation:

average global temperature rise since 1998 say about 0.2^OC times 'x' divided by 7 carry the 3 minus the coefficient of the hypotenuse plus 46 equals.

Okay got it:

Since 1998 the Earth has absorbed heat equivalent too 2,267,605,900 Hiroshima nuclear bombs and counting.

Holy guacamole that's a lot of heat.

Shit! Im absolutely terrified, can u send me that cyanide, u may as well with all the global warming hysteria we're all doomed, not sure if i can sleep tonight or not now.

Take a sedative you'll be right.

[cumgranosalum]

Reduce the population, reduce man's impact- seems simple to me.

Are you offering? Do you have a short list of family members you would like 'reduced' to lessen the impact on the global environment?

Are you saying that I should kill my family?

I haven't had any children and my sister hasn't had any children. My wife hasn't any children. I think I and my family are doing our bit to reduce the population.

Cultures that believe it is OK to have 7 or more children per woman need to be educated that it's not a good thing to do anymore.

So if the world stopped having kids.... What would happen then? A world full of senile geriatrics who can't get their heads round even the most basic science...... Where have I experienced that model? Oh yes! On this thread!

[canuckamuck]

Your budgies speak Latin and your ferret had a PhD. Sounds like wonderland can I call you Alice?

I posited a question to you as to whether or not solar activity has an effect on temperature and climate change. You said no, and then you tried to qualify your error by claiming it can only effects local climate change. So you can't now say you were always discussing Global climate change. You added the concept of local climate change.

Now please answer my question and quit searching for a cute exit.

Apology accepted:

Solar Activity Influences Climate Change:

"Changes in the sun’s energy output may have led to marked natural climate change in Europe over the last 1000 years, according to researchers at Cardiff University."

"The results of these analyses revealed large and abrupt temperature and salinity changes in the north-flowing warm current on time-scales of several decades to centuries. Cold ocean conditions were found to match periods of low solar energy output, corresponding to intervals of low sunspot activity observed on the surface of the sun. Using a physics-based climate model, the authors were able to test the response of the ocean to changes in the solar output and found similar results to the data." - See more at: http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/earth/spaceship-earth/solar-activity-influences-climate-change/#sthash.Y2AmhCYh.dpuf

I await Upu2's next chart. Please can you find a new one. you have posted some of those so often they should be your avatar.

And I do apologize for not being more involved. Can't be helped. Busy times. Maybe next week.

"Predictions suggest a prolonged period of low sun activity over the next few decades, but any associated natural temperature changes will be much smaller than those created by human carbon dioxide emissions, say researchers."

A_A_FrostFair_3.jpg

Move on nothing to see here. Next

You keep serving em up and I'll keep knocking em out of the park

My first response to your post is the graph that shows effect of Grand Solar Minimum on GLOBAL Warming

You post that chart so much it just blends onto the background. But this is not the point when you switched to speak of localized climate change. That came after you denied that solar activity can effect temperature and climate.

Clearly you want the discussion to turn to semantics because you are unwilling to answer clear questions.

[canuckamuck]

Your budgies speak Latin and your ferret had a PhD. Sounds like wonderland can I call you Alice?

I posited a question to you as to whether or not solar activity has an effect on temperature and climate change. You said no, and then you tried to qualify your error by claiming it can only effects local climate change. So you can't now say you were always discussing Global climate change. You added the concept of local climate change.

Now please answer my question and quit searching for a cute exit.

Apology accepted:

Solar Activity Influences Climate Change:

"Changes in the sun’s energy output may have led to marked natural climate change in Europe over the last 1000 years, according to researchers at Cardiff University."

"The results of these analyses revealed large and abrupt temperature and salinity changes in the north-flowing warm current on time-scales of several decades to centuries. Cold ocean conditions were found to match periods of low solar energy output, corresponding to intervals of low sunspot activity observed on the surface of the sun. Using a physics-based climate model, the authors were able to test the response of the ocean to changes in the solar output and found similar results to the data." - See more at: http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/earth/spaceship-earth/solar-activity-influences-climate-change/#sthash.Y2AmhCYh.dpuf

I await Upu2's next chart. Please can you find a new one. you have posted some of those so often they should be your avatar.

And I do apologize for not being more involved. Can't be helped. Busy times. Maybe next week.

"Predictions suggest a prolonged period of low sun activity over the next few decades, but any associated natural temperature changes will be much smaller than those created by human carbon dioxide emissions, say researchers."

A_A_FrostFair_3.jpg

Move on nothing to see here. Next

You keep serving em up and I'll keep knocking em out of the park

My first response to your post is the graph that shows effect of Grand Solar Minimum on GLOBAL Warming

[STUDMEYER]

Google "Snowball Earth" There is an accompanying documentary.

It's a rather compelling theory that the entire Earth was once covered in Ice. There is proof (of something) in glacial erratics left in places that were thought to have never frozen over.

Rgs

SM

[up2u2]

You post that chart so much it just blends onto the background. But this is not the point when you switched to speak of localized climate change. That came after you denied that solar activity can effect temperature and climate.

Clearly you want the discussion to turn to semantics because you are unwilling to answer clear questions.

Lets face it canuck ALL the science on GW / CC blends onto the background for you. The Article answers your question. The science answers your question. Will small regional conditions or slight changes in Climate effect the overall heating on Earth - Global Warming. Answer No. Will the IPCC include this research in their modelling: Yes. will it make any substantial difference to that modelling NO.

[mogandave]

Will the IPCC include this research in their modelling: Yes. will it make any substantial difference to that modelling NO.

If it did make a substantial difference would the IPCC change there position and start advocating CO2 production?

Again, in your opinion, and as a percentage, how much of a reduction in CO2 has to be made to reverse, stop or significantly slow MMGW?

[kannot]

I get a nasty feeling that even if it cooled for 50 years the global warming folk would provide "evidence" that this was all part of what would happen, cooling or warming they simply call it climate change due to man, so you aint gonna win whatever you say.........in the meantime enjoy paying the stupid carbon tax.

Edited September 8, 2015 by kannot

[kannot]

Will the IPCC include this research in their modelling: Yes. will it make any substantial difference to that modelling NO.

If it did make a substantial difference would the IPCC change there position and start advocating CO2 production?

Again, in your opinion, and as a percentage, how much of a reduction in CO2 has to be made to reverse, stop or significantly slow MMGW?

There is absolutely NOTHING they can do, anything they try will result in world war 3.

[movieplay]

...and the ipcc modeling is going sooo well.. how can you not have confidence in this psuedo science that predicted warming when there was a warm pdo and solar maximums, it was brilliant the way they managed to predict that it would continue to warm at a steady rate because of co2 and not because of all that solar pdo stuff that had always dominated climate before..

from the Financial Times

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/IPCC_Models_Mushy.pdf

The IPCC graph shows that climate models predicted temperatures should have responded by rising somewhere between about 0.2 and 0.9 degrees C over the same period. But the actual temperature change was only about 0.1 degrees, and was within the margin of error around zero. In other words, models significantly over-predicted the warming effect of CO2 emissions for the past 22 years.

Chapter 9 of the IPCC draft also shows that overestimation of warming was observed on even longer time scales in data collected by weather satellites and weather balloons over the tropics. Because of its dominant role in planetary energy and precipitation patterns, models have to get the tropical region right if they are credibly to simulate the global climate system. Based on all climate models used by the IPCC, this region of the atmosphere (specifically the tropical mid- troposphere) should exhibit the most rapid greenhouse warming anywhere. Yet most data sets show virtually no temperature change for over 30 years.

The IPCCs view of the science, consistently held since the 1990s, is that CO2 is the key driver of modern climate change, and that natural variability is too small to count in comparison. This is the mainstream view of climate science, and it is what is programmed into all modern climate models. Outputs from the models, in turn, have driven the extraordinarily costly global climate agenda of recent decades. But it is now becoming clear that the models have sharply over predicted warming, and therein lies a problem.

As the gap between models and reality has grown wider, so has the number of mainstream scientists gingerly raising the possibility that climate models may soon need a bit of a re-think. A recent study by some well-known German climate modelers put the probability that models can currently be reconciled with observations at less than 2%, and they said that if we see another five years without a large warming, the probability will drop to zero.

In the section of the report where it discusses the model-observation mismatch in the tropics, it admits (with high confidence) that models overestimate warming in the tropics. Then it says with a shrug that the cause of this bias is elusive and promptly drops the subject. What about the implications of this bias? The IPCC not only falls conspicuously silent on that point, it goes on to conclude, despite all evidence to the contrary, that it has very high confidence that climate models correctly represent the atmospheric effects of changing CO2 levels.

Finally, the IPCC has proven, yet again, that it is incapable of being objective. Canadian journalist Donna LaFramboise has meticulously documented the extent to which the IPCC has been colonized by environmental activists over the years, and we now see the result. As the model-versus-reality discrepancy plays out, the last place you will learn about it will be in IPCC reports.

[canuckamuck]

You post that chart so much it just blends onto the background. But this is not the point when you switched to speak of localized climate change. That came after you denied that solar activity can effect temperature and climate.

Clearly you want the discussion to turn to semantics because you are unwilling to answer clear questions.

Lets face it canuck ALL the science on GW / CC blends onto the background for you. The Article answers your question. The science answers your question. Will small regional conditions or slight changes in Climate effect the overall heating on Earth - Global Warming. Answer No. Will the IPCC include this research in their modelling: Yes. will it make any substantial difference to that modelling NO.

I believe that science, honest science with no agenda will eventually discover the complex relationships between the issues. Of solar activity and climate. You on the other have no answers but your prepared parroted responses. I ask you some clear questions and all you did was deflect and evade.

[up2u2]

Will the IPCC include this research in their modelling: Yes. will it make any substantial difference to that modelling NO.

If it did make a substantial difference would the IPCC change there position and start advocating CO2 production?

Again, in your opinion, and as a percentage, how much of a reduction in CO2 has to be made to reverse, stop or significantly slow MMGW?

This is an absolute known quantity. Research shows that Solar Minimums will have little to no effect on GW / CC. The defining research was done by Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010 (click to view Research Paper). They modelled a Grand Solar Minimum by combining the Forcing of the Wolf. Sporer, Maunder and Dalton Solar Minimums and found a total Forcing of -0.3^OC over 100 years.

Although it does slightly influence GW it is dwarfed by the Forcing of CO₂ greenhouse gas pollution. Global Warming continues to rise steeply unabated. Keep in mind this is Modelled on a GRAND solar minimum. 'movieplay' is basing his Ice Age theory on an iddy biddy Maunder Minimum which has a Forcing of -0.02^OC. It just becomes fanciful when you look at the slight effect a GRAND combined solar minimum is able to do.

Abstract: (Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010)

[1] The current exceptionally long minimum of solar activity has led to the suggestion that the Sun might experience a new grand minimum in the next decades, a prolonged period of low activity similar to the Maunder minimum in the late 17th century. The Maunder minimum is connected to the Little Ice Age, a time of markedly lower temperatures, in particular in the Northern hemisphere. Here we use a coupled climate model to explore the effect of a 21st-century grand minimum on future global temperatures, finding a moderate temperature offset of no more than −0.3°C in the year 2100 relative to a scenario with solar activity similar to recent decades. This temperature decrease is much smaller than the warming expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century.

I tend to use the A2 graph as it is a little less 'noisy'.

Currently Earth is in a 100 year Solar minimum all time low. Look at what the Global Temperature is doing:

Global Warming is heading in the opposite direction.

The TSI will soon come out of its 11 year cycle and begin adding to Global Warming. Not much but it really is the last thing we need. We have roughly two more Solar Maximums to ride before a Solar Minimum similar to a Maunder Minimum and that isn't locked in yet and even if it does arrive it is just not strong enough to have any real effect on GW let alone an Ice Age.

The IPCC recommendation to International Governments is to set targets that will hopefully limit GW to 2^OC by 2030. This will not avoid Climate Change and resulting Extreme weather events and Sea Level rises and Ocean acidification but the destruction will be manageable. This would require ALL countries to gradually transition from a heavy reliance on Fossil Fuels particularly Coal, Oil and Gas to clean energy.

[up2u2]

...and the ipcc modeling is going sooo well.. how can you not have confidence in this psuedo science that predicted warming when there was a warm pdo and solar maximums, it was brilliant the way they managed to predict that it would continue to warm at a steady rate because of co2 and not because of all that solar pdo stuff that had always dominated climate before..

from the Financial Times

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/IPCC_Models_Mushy.pdf

The IPCC graph shows that climate models predicted temperatures should have responded by rising somewhere between about 0.2 and 0.9 degrees C over the same period. But the actual temperature change was only about 0.1 degrees, and was within the margin of error around zero. In other words, models significantly over-predicted the warming effect of CO2 emissions for the past 22 years.

Chapter 9 of the IPCC draft also shows that overestimation of warming was observed on even longer time scales in data collected by weather satellites and weather balloons over the tropics. Because of its dominant role in planetary energy and precipitation patterns, models have to get the tropical region right if they are credibly to simulate the global climate system. Based on all climate models used by the IPCC, this region of the atmosphere (specifically the tropical mid- troposphere) should exhibit the most rapid greenhouse warming anywhere. Yet most data sets show virtually no temperature change for over 30 years.

The IPCCs view of the science, consistently held since the 1990s, is that CO2 is the key driver of modern climate change, and that natural variability is too small to count in comparison. This is the mainstream view of climate science, and it is what is programmed into all modern climate models. Outputs from the models, in turn, have driven the extraordinarily costly global climate agenda of recent decades. But it is now becoming clear that the models have sharply over predicted warming, and therein lies a problem.

As the gap between models and reality has grown wider, so has the number of mainstream scientists gingerly raising the possibility that climate models may soon need a bit of a re-think. A recent study by some well-known German climate modelers put the probability that models can currently be reconciled with observations at less than 2%, and they said that if we see another five years without a large warming, the probability will drop to zero.

In the section of the report where it discusses the model-observation mismatch in the tropics, it admits (with high confidence) that models overestimate warming in the tropics. Then it says with a shrug that the cause of this bias is elusive and promptly drops the subject. What about the implications of this bias? The IPCC not only falls conspicuously silent on that point, it goes on to conclude, despite all evidence to the contrary, that it has very high confidence that climate models correctly represent the atmospheric effects of changing CO2 levels.

Finally, the IPCC has proven, yet again, that it is incapable of being objective. Canadian journalist Donna LaFramboise has meticulously documented the extent to which the IPCC has been colonized by environmental activists over the years, and we now see the result. As the model-versus-reality discrepancy plays out, the last place you will learn about it will be in IPCC reports.

lmao Ross McKitrick is part of the 'right wing' Fraser Institute funded by.....wait for it..........you guessed it:

Fraser Institute received $120,000 in funding from oil giant ExxonMobil

Canadian subsidiary of Koch Industries

another of the Koch family foundations, provided a total of US$500,000 to the Fraser Institute

Too much bribe money sloshing about

Seriously 'movieplay' do your research before you distribute Oil Money propaganda

What did you expect McKitrick to publish when he is funded by Big Oil and the Koch Bros. no less.

If McKitrick told me it was raining I'd go outside and check. It is as obvious as a bill on a duck who is paying for his research. If you actually did a quick check 'movieplay' you wouldn't get punked like this and promote Climate Denier propaganda. The thing is your the goose running about spreading this nonsense and you aren't even getting a dollar for doing it. McKitrick is he's cleaning up.