The next mini-ice age cometh?

:shock:Considering the fact that people were wearing jackets yesterday in New York, I am prone to believe this.

Do those curly-q light bulbs put off any warmth?:lol:

Do those curly-q light bulbs put off any warmth?:lol:

You would have to run more than one I think. I'll be happy to sell you one of my boot leg incandescent for a small, reasonable mark up. 😀

You would have to run more than one I think. I'll be happy to sell you one of my boot leg incandescent for a small, reasonable mark up. 😀

I'm going back to burning whale-oil to read my parchments... I thought I'd use an Apache attack helicopter and hellfire missiles to kill 'em.

Great! If this is true, the end of the this cool spell should coincide with us transitioning to renewable power and curbing emissions.

The Earth runs in cycles that consist of decades. Which is far more complex than the radical environmentalists can grasp.

The Earth runs in cycles that consist of decades. Which is far more complex than the radical environmentalists can grasp.

Have you seen a graph of the rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere? It hasn't run in "decade cycles" in the last 200 years. It flat-lined for about 10,000 years and now it's going up like a rocket. Please explain this to my feeble mind.

You would have to run more than one I think. I'll be happy to sell you one of my boot leg incandescent for a small, reasonable mark up. 😀

There will be a craft industry for handmade incandescent bulbs. They'll be known as "home blowns".

Have you seen a graph of the rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere? It hasn't run in "decade cycles" in the last 200 years. It flat-lined for about 10,000 years and now it's going up like a rocket. Please explain this to my feeble mind.

I'd say deforestation would be the most likely cause if those numbers are accurate. (If they came from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just throw the numbers out and start over.) I'm sure burning fossil fuels plays a role as well.

[Note - that airport we built here trashed thousands of acres of natural habitat well designed to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Even here in Greenish SoWal, progress it seems, takes precedent. :(]

Things people should also remember:

1) The connection between CO2 and tempurature is not absolute.

2) The earth has the ability to adjust to changes in CO2 readily assuming man doesn't interfere in that process. (See deforestation.)

3) Over the earth's history, CO2 levels have been much much MUCH higher than they are now (or will reach in the next century), and during those periods life florished!

4) You are warm blooded. Cold bad, warm good! :lol:

I'd say deforestation would be the most likely cause if those numbers are accurate. (If they came from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just throw the numbers out and start over.) I'm sure burning fossil fuels plays a role as well.

[Note - that airport we built here trashed thousands of acres of natural habitat well designed to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Even here in Greenish SoWal, progress it seems, takes precedent. :(]

Things people should also remember:

1) The connection between CO2 and tempurature is not absolute.

2) The earth has the ability to adjust to changes in CO2 readily assuming man doesn't interfere in that process. (See deforestation.)

3) Over the earth's history, CO2 levels have been much much MUCH higher than they are now (or will reach in the next century), and during those periods life florished!

4) You are warm blooded. Cold bad, warm good! :lol:

"The CO2 levels present in the atmosphere are higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years, and probably higher than any time in the last 20 million years." (Wikipedia) The relationship of CO2 is directly related to temperature because of it's tendency to absorb infared radiation. You can contest the facts all you want, but the temperature of the earth will rise, due to deforestation and fossil fuel emissions. Does it really matter which? They are both man-made. I believe the earth was fairly uninhabitable for mammals when the CO2 levels were much higher (20 million years ago) so keep on coming up with your excuses why it's not a good idea to curb pollution and reduce energy consumption. Let's keep the light bulbs glowing into extinction.

"The CO2 levels present in the atmosphere are higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years, and probably higher than any time in the last 20 million years." (Wikipedia) The relationship of CO2 is directly related to temperature because of it's tendency to absorb infared radiation. You can contest the facts all you want, but the temperature of the earth will rise, due to deforestation and fossil fuel emissions. Does it really matter which? They are both man-made. I believe the earth was fairly uninhabitable for mammals when the CO2 levels were much higher (20 million years ago) so keep on coming up with your excuses why it's not a good idea to curb pollution and reduce energy consumption. Let's keep the light bulbs glowing into extinction.

Well, you have the last sentence right. Is this the same Wikipedia that you can change to anything you want? Will you please explain to this poor old dumb pilot how the CO2 levels garned from the exploding volcanos and other weather phenomena are so much less than those which are man made? To think that man alone can really make much of an impact on what Mother Nature decides to do is to not on my radar screen but I, as usual in the eyes of some, am probably wrong. So be it.

Well, you have the last sentence right. Is this the same Wikipedia that you can change to anything you want? Will you please explain to this poor old dumb pilot how the CO2 levels garned from the exploding volcanos and other weather phenomena are so much less than those which are man made? To think that man alone can really make much of an impact on what Mother Nature decides to do is to not on my radar screen but I, as usual in the eyes of some, am probably wrong. So be it.

I've found several links that indicate the CO2 produced by volcanoes pales in comparison to that produced by humans. You've been doing this long enough. By now you should know how to search for information and fact check for yourself.

I've found several links that indicate the CO2 produced by volcanos pales in comparison to that produced by humans. You've been doing this long enough. By now you should know how to search for information and fact check for yourself.

I'm doing some researching as well. What I'm finding is that the data and results of these studies are constantly disputed by the scientific community. Which just means science is working it's magic, in time we'll understand things better. But for now there's no reason to heap added pain and misery on our already damaged economy via knee jerk policies that attempt to fix a supposed problem we don't fully understand. However that doesn't mean we shouldn’t all be trying to reduce our carbon footprint in the event global warming turns out to real and damaging in some way.

Yes, and I am also bright enough and wise enought to know that if I do the research throughly, I can find something that refutes everything you say. That is one reason I no longer am interested in doing research. Too much bias by both sides of an issue gets in the way. Therefore, I'll use my own observations over time, along with my education, to form my opinions. Fact check is in the eye of the beholder. I am sorry if you disagree with my premise but it is true in today's world. When I grew up, not so much.

Volcanoes and other natural events like forest fires do produce a great deal of CO2, but we produce WAY more.

The difference is in the frequency and scale. A major volcano erupting is an infrequent and isolated event, and even regular eruptions from smaller volcanoes do not contribute much Co2. Emissions from human industry, electrical production, and transportation is a constant event happening billions (or trillions) of times each day.

We are producing more than 100 times the CO2 than the planet naturally produces. And increased deforestation makes it even worse.

Yes, and I am also bright enough and wise enought to know that if I do the research throughly, I can find something that refutes everything you say. That is one reason I no longer am interested in doing research. Too much bias by both sides of an issue gets in the way. Therefore, I'll use my own observations over time, along with my education, to form my opinions. Fact check is in the eye of the beholder. I am sorry if you disagree with my premise but it is true in today's world. When I grew up, not so much.

Sounds as if you are implying that science, the accumulation of data, and data analysis have taken us further away from the truth. You can't possibly believe that. All one has to do is look at today's weather prediction to know that is not the case. The same goes for medical diagnosis, forensics, ballistics, you name it. Facts are not in the eye of the beholder, whether we get them right or not.

Volcanoes and other natural events like forest fires do produce a great deal of CO2, but we produce WAY more.

The difference is in the frequency and scale. A major volcano erupting is an infrequent and isolated event, and even regular eruptions from smaller volcanoes do not contribute much Co2. Emissions from human industry, electrical production, and transportation is a constant event happening billions (or trillions) of times each day.

We are producing more than 100 times the CO2 than the planet naturally produces. And increased deforestation makes it even worse.

And of course we all know that we're capable of producing lethal air pollution. Back in the 60's, breathing the air was literally killing people. Then that pesky government decided to meddle in our right to die.

Don't go breakin out all those parkas yet. Like many things, the media has an issue for make things worse than they are.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/06/new-ice-age-dont-count-on-it.html

There's a simple problem with this claim. Let's assume that grand minima really do cool Earth's climate: not every climate scientist is convinced of that, but for the sake of argument let's go with it. Now the question becomes: how much do they cool it, and for how long?
The straightforward answer is: not enough. Last year researchers modelled what would happen to global temperatures if a grand minimum started now and continued until 2100. They found that it would lower temperatures by 0.3 °C at most.
That's not enough to compensate for our greenhouse gas emissions, which are set to raise temperatures by 2-4.5 °C by 2100. So in the most optimistic scenario, in which the grand minimum has the biggest effect possible and emissions their smallest, a rise of 2 °C would be reduced to 1.7 °C.
That isn't a new ice age: it's a slightly less severe heatwave.

Oh dangitall, we're getting into facts again...