It's Probably Nothing

Signs and seasons...

Gen 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lightholders in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs [things to come], and for seasons [appointed times], and for days, and years:

I wouldn't make a religion out of it, but worth watching.

Of course, they include the standard disclaimer that the sun isn't nearly as powerful as CO2. heh I guess we'll see who has more power...

Even at it's dimmest the sun is still brighter than every politician who supports man made global warming or man made climate change theory because they are completely oblivious to the big ball of fire in the sky having any kind of effect on earth at all!

Stupid people everywhere!! and now they run our governments.

Now that the enviorwinnies have traded in their seal/polar bear fur lined coats for tank tops and spandex shorts,
they are gonna freeze.

-

Fog Horn, Leg Horn Rooster:

"I says, I says,

"Al Gore has his 400 million dollars to keep him warm."

I've subscribed to the idea of an impending min-ice age ever since NASA confirmed the sharp decrease in sun spot activity some 5 years ago. It seems they were correct in postulating these sun spot inactivity periods parallel extremely cold periods on earth - but hey, we have a big green money gobbling AGW leviathan to feed - it's an industry that almost rivals the energy sector. Complaining about global warming/climate change gives millions of unemployable leftards an income and a moral purpose and has spawed a flim flam alternate energy tech sector which pulls more public subsidy than health care. - so even if the sun turns off, it will all be the fault of the middle class consumer and the petro industry.

We shall see how their obstructonist posture towards affordable heat/fuel decays as the nights get longer and colder.

I wonder if we will ever know how much this 30/40 year flirt with warmist fear mongering has cost us in treasure and stress, and of course is still costing us.And if anyone will be called to account for fomenting this fear while knowing it was not true.

Before I subscribe to any 'est' theory (warmest/coldest) I want to see the data and understand how the data was obtained. For instance how does anyone know how active the sun was 10,000 years ago. Kinda falls into the 4 blood moon category until further explanation is provided.

Meanwhile, the plutocrats that run the scam make sure they get the gravy while stealing money from those it was intended to help.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/27/long-green/

Wonder if Suzuki or Greenpeace scammed any of this dough?

These people could teach our Senators how to run the grift properly.

Must be a different Mike Lockwood . . .

"In 2007, Mike Lockwood said that he had conclusive evidence that man-made CO2 was responsible for global warming.

Sun Not a Global Warming Culprit, Study Says

National Geographic News July 12, 2007

Cyclical changes in the sun’s energy output are not responsible for Earth’s recent global warming, a new study asserts.

Instead the findings put the blame for climate change squarely on human-created carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases—reinforcing the beliefs of most climate scientists. “Up until 1985 you could argue that the sun was [trending] in a direction that could have contributed to Earth’s rising temperatures,” said study author A. Mike Lockwood of the University of Southampton in Britain. Two decades ago, “it did a U-turn. If the sun had been warming the Earth, that should have come to an end, and we should have seen temperatures start to go the other way,” Lockwood said. Yet Earth’s temperatures have continued to climb since that date—making a strong solar role in warming appear unlikely.

“I think it’s quite conclusive,” said Lockwood, who co-authored the report appearing in the current issue of the U.K. journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A.

Sun Not a Global Warming Culprit, Study Says

Now, he says the exact opposite

Real risk of a Maunder minimum ‘Little Ice Age’ says leading scientist

According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985.

Since then the sun has been getting quieter. By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, he has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years. Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years. He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now – and the present decline is faster than any of those 24. Based on his findings he’s raised the risk of a new Maunder minimum from less than 10% just a few years ago to 25-30%. And a repeat of the Dalton solar minimum which occurred in the early 1800s, which also had its fair share of cold winters and poor summers, is, according to him, ‘more likely than not’ to happen.

He believes that we are already beginning to see a change in our climate – witness the colder winters and poor summers of recent years – and that over the next few decades there could be a slide to a new Maunder minimum.

Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist

Just as scientists are starting to come to their senses, the LA Times bans any letters which don’t emphasize discredited science."

Nice catch Steve.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/97587/

Thank goodness we have been insulating the planet against the cold. Untold millions, if not billions, of lives may have been saved.

Interesting how the Beeb got a small hat tip to global warming hooey inserted at the end of the story. This seems to be standard practice among those who have swallowed the Kool-Aid served up by Gore and Suzuki. When confronted with the growing mountain of real-world data that trashes their cherished beliefs, the global warming cultists and their media hand-maidens assert that is it is only temporary. Just you wait. Gore and Suzuki will be vindicated. So keep the dollars coming.

The socialist ecotards need full blame for this..............

If the BBC and other legacy media types now sense there will be money and control to be had by promoting ice age fearmongering they will unashamedly throw the global warming fearmongers under the bus.
In the legacy media's mind it does not matter on bit that global warming and ice age "threats" are at the opposite ends of the climate alarmism spectrum. The only thing that matters to them is having some kind of fearmongering scam to push on a gullible public in order to sell headlines and maintain control over the people through fear and salvation. The ruling class and Kings&Queens and religions and end-of-the-world cults and most politicians and legacy media - same sh1t different pile.

Its the Sun, Son.

Part of me is hoping for a little ice age so we can finally put a sock in the collective mouth of the hysterical AGW loons, although I suspect they'll simply move to some other scam. But knowing the implications of a global cooling, the less vindictive part of me hopes very much that the cooling doesn't occur. It won't be fun. The planet will do one of two things, warm or cool. I'll take global warming any day.

If the sun is decreasing output and Earth's temperature is flat, does that not suggest an upward forcing of some kind?

It actually saddens me that their is no global warming. I was looking forward to beach front property on the Arctic ocean. Nice long summers. Instead where going back to the mini ice age of the 19th century. Like its not cold enough in Alberta.
Hey but its been a good run for the extremely wealthy , plus the bogus scientists of climatology.
Of course at the cost of tax paying real workers. Just lie so many chicken little alarmists of the last 100 years. Only I wish these dopes would have done the honourable thing like the Heavens gate people, & did themselves in.
100's of billions gone to appease the climate Gods with their warlock familures.

So, the article ends by claiming that even if we face a Maunder "Little Ice Age" rather than a Medieval or Roman Warm, increasing CO2 will override it and we will keep getting warmer.

First, why then has this not been happening for almost two decades?

Second, so we should produce even more CO2 to keep from freezing?

No matter which way the Global temperature goes, I feel the only answer is more [electrical] power, more widely available. Not necessarily "fossil" fuel, though wind and solar do not seem more practical for anything larger than a ranch or farm using them to fill water tanks for irrigation and drinking.

Fallen Angels, indeed.

From BishopHill comments

According to "greensand" (see comments on the Hudson article), this was first posted on 16 October. There've been (he says) two changes. First, this has been inserted:

It is worth stressing that most scientists believe long term global warming hasn’t gone away.

And secondly, the final paragraph has been changed from

That said it could wipe out much of the warming that we have witnessed since the 1950s and as a consequence have far reaching political implications.

to

But should North Western Europe be heading for a new "little ice age", there could be far reaching political implications - not least because global temperatures may fall enough, albeit temporarily, to eliminate much of the warming which has occurred since the 1950s.

Interesting.

Oct 28, 2013 at 12:09 PM | Registered CommenterRobin Guenier

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/10/28/hudson-on-the-ice.html

what is the flow time between the centre of the antarctic and the coast , the icesheet has been increasing for a number of years but I suspect the time it takes to flow from loading in the centre is likely 100000 years or more.

if we have a little ice age we will get less water coming off the glaciers as they rebuild.

and a big ice age will clean those nasty oilsands plants clean off the landscape and push them to Montana

cgh, I am well aware of how the determination has been made however I don't believe in 'settled science'. Yes the instruments detect certain isotopes. Can it be shown irrefutably that ONLY a solar minimum can cause said isotopes to be present in the infinitesimally small samples we can and have taken? I'm not calling the data 'fixed' or 'tweaked' I'm simply pointing out that a healthy dose of skepticism is exactly that - healthy.

Atmosphere temperature changes are in large consequence the discharge or lack thereof of heat from the oceans. Because of this very high specific heat of water, there's a long lag time. A decade or so is probably about right.

It didn't take that long for the mammoths in Siberia to be frozen. They still had buttercups in their mouths.

Stradivarious, there's global climate and there's local weather.

Not saying it was global, but Alaska and Siberia cover a lot of ground.

In your mind cgh, the isotope measurement is an accurate way to measure past variations of solar activity. Of course according to Al Gore the amount of CO2 mankind sends into the atmosphere indicates what future global temperatures will be. I don't accept either as being evidence beyond a doubt. While I can agree that we can reasonably accurately measure the isotope ratio in a given volume we can not prove the source nor the dispersion of the isotopes. The amount of samples we have to base our assumptions on is akin to parking one thermometer in Siberia and another in Chile and when both of them go up assume global warming is happening. While change at the two points MAY indicate GW it does not PROVE GW.