Sun Is Extremely Quiet, Scientists Worry We Are Entering Ice Age

"Six days in a row" is hardly the same as "decades long low solar activity'.

This report is very alarmist, and doesn't compare apples to apples.

a reply to: babybunnies

6 days is like nothing to the sun. 6 days doesnt even matter.

originally posted by: DrumsRfun
a reply to: onequestion

Here,as i said,we won't be seeing one in our lifetimes.
geology.utah.gov...

Ice ages last many years and take many years to occur...its normal.

Sunspots are a common thing much like ice ages that take a long time to happen and a long time to go away.

When people act like things like this are the end of the world...I have to bring history up....and no I haven't read any of your threads.

most sunspots last no more than three days. the most familiar sun cycle of spots lasts 11 years. though again individual sun spots form and dissipate all the time (normally excepting in solar minimums) there are also less well known cycles that last 100s or thousands or even 10s of thousands of years.

during long minimums not part of the 11 year cycle earth significantly cools. As to ice ages: some can take place in as little as 100 years if the ocean conveyor belt current stalls or redirects. it is not true that all ice ages come on gradually.

a reply to: IndependentOpinion

global warming is being explained due to heat being trapped and bounced back upon the Earth like a convection cell because of the state of our atmosphere, not because of the Suns activity...


So while the sun could be at the lowest activity ever recorded if the state of the atmosphere was bad enough we could still experience global warming and even face extinction...

No I'm not saying this is happening now just making a point...

a reply to: stormbringer1701

They have happened in months these people are totally clueless.

Some posters seem a trifle confused.

We are not entering a new "ice age"; ice ages are caused by the Earth's wobble.

We may be entering a phase of cooling due to relatively low solar output.

So, a "mini ice age" possibly, which is nothing like as long or as devastatingly cold as an ice age proper.

And even that wont be as cold as the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century, due to the higher levels of CO2 we have now which traps heat (if indeed we are entering another cooling phase, which is debatable).

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: IndependentOpinion

global warming is being explained due to heat being trapped and bounced back upon the Earth like a convection cell because of the state of our atmosphere, not because of the Suns activity...

So while the sun could be at the lowest activity ever recorded if the state of the atmosphere was bad enough we could still experience global warming and even face extinction...

No I'm not saying this is happening now just making a point...

while we are speaking of things people are not aware of are you aware that as a green house gas CO2's forcing effect drops off as concentrations increase; meaning that adding a little gets more effect than adding a lot? also that according to even the AGWer's historical data from proxies like ice cores and the like increases in CO2 generally follow warming and not the other way around. it's rather hard to argue CO2 is the big bad if it doesn't show up until after an alleged greenhouse event in the historical record.

originally posted by: CJCrawley
Some posters seem a trifle confused.

We are not entering a new "ice age"; ice ages are caused by the Earth's wobble.

We may be entering a phase of cooling due to relatively low solar output.

So, a "mini ice age" possibly, which is nothing like as long or as devastatingly cold as an ice age proper.

And even that wont be as cold as the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century, due to the higher levels of CO2 we have now which traps heat (if indeed we are entering another cooling phase, which is debatable).

nope. ice ages have also happened when there was no change in axial orientation. the precessional wobble thing was never more than a hypothesis offered on insufficient data.

a reply to: IndependentOpinion
They very recently had to make (or are rerouting right now) a new route to the top of Mt. Everest because rising temperatures have made the most popular route too dangerous to use. An avalanche last year killed 16 of the Sherpas.

a reply to: CJCrawley

Who seems confused? I didn't see any comments regarding what you just posted. The title is a bit misleading yes, but how is it any different than global warming propaganda?

Given the extremely small time frame of "accurate" data we have on "climate change", do you really think it is okay to spread so much fear out onto the ignorant masses? Just another thing to make them worry and feel guilty about that they don't need.

Before the incredible effort of those behind the campaign on global warming, there were many extremely intelligent people/universities that had the balls to tell the truth scientifically, not politically.

They weren't silenced, and didn't at that time risk being blacklisted among their fellow "climatologists".

Here is one such article from Harvard University researchers that was published in the Harvard University Gazette Nov 06, 1997, titled "Brightening Sun is Warming Earth -- May account for major part of global warming".

news.harvard.edu...

Look to the last paragraph of that article for a realization of what was coming in regards to actual science vs politics/economics. It was already starting then, almost 20 years ago, the battle against politics taking over a certain subcategory of science.

"But," Baliunas admits, "I am addressing scientific issues. Economic, political, and environmental considerations are quite another story."

a reply to: stormbringer1701

co2 is not the only problem, another problem for instance is methane as CH4 is 20 times the bully on our atmosphere...

and did you know methane is being released into our atmosphere at an alarming rate?

People may deny global warming is a real issue... But if you ask me, You could blame co2 for starting global warming and forcing the release of methane with the melting of polar ice caps...but methane will make it undeniable if things do not change...

this is a very real problem and the conspiracy in my opinion is how it is being pushed aside...


Another thing I should say...proof of global warming is the change in weather patterns which so many scratch their heads over and wonder why... direct correlation...

I wouldn't say it's been that quiet considering this happened on the 22nd.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: stormbringer1701

co2 is not the only problem, another problem for instance is methane as CH4 is 20 times the bully on our atmosphere...

and did you know methane is being released into our atmosphere at an alarming rate?

People may deny global warming is a real issue... But if you ask me, You could blame co2 for starting global warming and forcing the release of methane with the melting of polar ice caps...but methane will make it undeniable if things do not change...

this is a very real problem and the conspiracy in my opinion is how it is being pushed aside...

Another thing I should say...proof of global warming is the change in weather patterns which so many scratch their heads over and wonder why... direct correlation...

Pushed aside?

Have you paid for energy lately? Or tried to do anything in business?

We're wasting billions on this nonsense.


And as far as "permafrost" and methane goes. Firstly we know next to nothing about how much methane is being released naturally. Huge out gassing events have taken place in the Atlantic recently, and we have no idea if it is normal or not, because we didn't know it was even happening, it was a fluke that we even saw it this time. Let's learn a little before we try to alter peoples lifestyles.

Secondly, it was last thawed around 1,000 years ago. Do you realize how recent that is in terms of earth history?

Why was it thawed 1,000 years ago?


Knee jerk reactions are rarely the right ones.

a reply to: Bloodydagger

Has anyone heard this? Honestly, this doesn't shock me at all if its true. The weather lately is extremely bi-polar

It was predicted by Livingston and Penn over seven years ago. Global warming is a picnic compared to global cooling. If we enter a cooling period and have major worldwiide crop failures we will likely see war and famine which could kill off more than half the worlds population very quickly. Rug up.

a reply to: babybunnies

You do realize that even Obama's Science Czar said that "global warming" is preventing a new ice age right? Maybe we should tax people who DON'T use CO2.

a year ago on feb 15 2014 I posted a reply on this forum fragile earth on the thread WHITE HOUSE : U.S is cold as the planet is hot and at the end of my post I asked are we in for another mini ice age not even a star came my way now nearly exactly a year later a scientist is saying the same thing it makes me laugh. my reply on that particular thread is on page 5 and the member who posted the thread is xuenchan. a reply to: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: CJCrawley
Some posters seem a trifle confused.

We are not entering a new "ice age"; ice ages are caused by the Earth's wobble.

We may be entering a phase of cooling due to relatively low solar output.

So, a "mini ice age" possibly, which is nothing like as long or as devastatingly cold as an ice age proper.

And even that wont be as cold as the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century, due to the higher levels of CO2 we have now which traps heat (if indeed we are entering another cooling phase, which is debatable).

CO2 is a liner green house gas, not an exponential one. You get minor warming for it at best even then.

Also, we have had far higher levels of atmospheric CO2 at several times in the Earth's geologic past and somehow managed to much colder climates during those periods.

originally posted by: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3
a reply to: babybunnies

You do realize that even Obama's Science Czar said that "global warming" is preventing a new ice age right? Maybe we should tax people who DON'T use CO2.

That would be a pointless tax. Everyone creates CO2. No one would get taxed.

Bloodydagger:

It also goes against the whole global warming bandwagon...

Actually, it doesn't go against the idea of global warming. You have to both understand and consider how the sun's heat plays a part in our climates, and how gases, natural and man-made affect the climate.

Under optimal conditions, the earth receives the greater part of the sun's heat along the equatorial line, and that heat is then moved North and South by ocean and wind dynamics, and by the rotation of the earth. For many thousands of years, the earth has enjoyed a stable and moderate global climate, fluctuating slightly, but always remaining moderate and stable. No one dynamic dominating over others, but it is a highly delicate balance, even on and at the global scale.

For 300 years, man has burned fossil fuels and dumped massive amounts of carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. For a length of time the earth, the oceans and the winds have dealt with this 'added' influx, but reached a point of saturation. Man, however, has not slowed down on his burning of fossil fuels, but increased his propensity to do so. This meant that the greenhouse gases started to build up in the atmosphere, circulating globally, and the earth's natural maintenance could not deal with the build up of gases as fast as man was putting them into the atmosphere.

In essence, we are now living in a 'greenhouse'. The sun continues to send its heat towards the earth, and a lot of it is reflected back out into space, but a lot of it reaches the earth's land and ocean surface, and it is this heat that is trapped under the layer of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Inside the greenhouse, things are warming up, but outside things are cooling down.

It is estimated that the difference between a moderate climate and an ice age is just 5 degrees (on a global scale of course), and if the sun, as the scientists are saying, may be entering a cooling phase, and emitting a lower irradiance, it could place us on a warming rock or an ice cube? We could end up in a situation of lowering oxygen levels as global warming releases ever greater quantities of methane, but at least we will be warm to overheating, or we could end up in a mini ice age. It depends upon which natural dynamic becomes the dominant force, and for how long?

Global warming is making the once moderate climate chaotic, we are in a period where natural dynamics are contesting each other to become the dominant force, or where they finally subside into a balance again. While we continue to burn fossil fuels and continue to dump massive amounts of gases into the atmosphere, I doubt very much that a balance will be the end result. If one dominant dynamic wins over the others, it will be bad for all life on the planet. If the sun has entered into a long-term cooling trend, then we may have a cold planet waiting for us, even if we do the right thing.

a reply to: Blaine91555

The economy will be fine for 99.9% of the citizens of Earth if we go towards green energy solutions.

Big Oil and friends will suffer, perhaps even go out of business. They know this, hence the propaganda push to make it seem like addressing the man-made problems we are causing this person will destroy the economy, or addressing the addressing the issues is just a socialist/communist agenda aimed at (insert evil sounding world domination goal here).

If our species wants to thrive, we have to take care of the planet. Destroying the planet will destroy us.

It is interesting to see how many have already blindly jumped on the "We're heading toward an ice-age" bandwagon on this thread just because they want to be against the notion of man-made global warming, NOT because they actually need their own independent research and reached their own unbiased conclusion.