Is a mini ICE AGE on the way?

[Alan C.]

Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet

 

The Earth could be headed for a 'mini ice age' researchers have warned.

A new study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles - and says that between 2020 and 2030 solar cycles will cancel each other out.

This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the 'Maunder minimum' - which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715, even causing London's River Thames to freeze over.

. . .

Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645, according to the results presented by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.

The model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022.

During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

'In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun,' said Zharkova.

'Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other.

'We predict that this will lead to the properties of a 'Maunder minimum.''

[st434u]

Very interesting. I had heard of this 4 or 5 years ago. I wonder if anything changed since then.

[shirgall]

This idea was pretty popular in the seventies.

[A4E]

Could it have something to do with this illustration?

 

 

Not so important for us, but to our species is that it seems we are on our way down in temperature.

 

 

From here.

[GregMerwe]

Did you ever watch the BBC documentary Global Dimming? In my opinion that unknowingly sets up a very valid counter theory to co2 based global warming theory. In the documentary they basically come to the conclusion that the air planes exhaust, as I call it, is creating a pollution barrier that reduces the evaporation rate. In the documentary they of course refer to the planes exhaust as contrails. Which is another questionable aspect. Do jet engines that burn petroleum based carbon fuels not have a by product of combustion. What is the by product of combustion? I learned in science class when i was 14-15 that the basic scientific equation for combustion was C+o2=CO not co2. Because combustion requires oxygen to burn and o2 (oxygen) only exists as two molecules. When combustion occurs the oxygen is used as a part of the combustion we are left with carbon monoxide, not CO2. I looked in to this further. You get two types of combustion incomplete and complete combustion. Incomplete combustion is the most common type of combustion. Complete combustion requires re-oxidising the carbon after combustion. This is why we have catalytic converters in cars. The Catalytic converter, which was an amazing invention, reoxidises the carbon monoxide and converts it to the much cleaner and invisible carbon dioxide. CO2 is not an official pollutant at the EPA and has never been classified as a pollutant. Plants use CO2 and humans exhale CO2. CO2 is used to put out fires in fire extinguishers. Co2 is used in the food industry, Every coke can has CO2 in it. If we could make CO2 a by product of combustion it would be an amazing feat because we would no longer be pumping pollutants in the atmosphere.

 

It is very much like ancient rome, 2000 years later and we still have the same tactics. Controlling science and the population. Don't get me started on the carbon trading market and the carbon credits and carbon tax. They want you to believe that humans are a walking chimney stick. I think it is a conspiracy by the big polluters they hijacked the environmental movement thanks to AL gore and his inconvenient truth. Now everyone thinks that you get co2 from incomplete combustion and that co2 is a pollutant. They even showed that lecture to every school in the country for several years. While the environmental movement is focused on CO2 output, the big polluters can pump out real actual pollutants without much attention. That part is just my own speculation.

I should add that what i have just said is not accepted by most people and that you will find a lot of incorrect and false science online regarding combustion and pollution.

 

http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/urbanair/

[Mister Mister]

No one has any idea what the sun is going to do, possibly not even how it works

[AncapFTW]

Did you ever watch the BBC documentary Global Dimming? In my opinion that unknowingly sets up a very valid counter theory to co2 based global warming theory. In the documentary they basically come to the conclusion that the air planes exhaust, as I call it, is creating a pollution barrier that reduces the evaporation rate. In the documentary they of course refer to the planes exhaust as contrails. Which is another questionable aspect. Do jet engines that burn petroleum based carbon fuels not have a by product of combustion. What is the by product of combustion? I learned in science class when i was 14-15 that the basic scientific equation for combustion was C+o2=CO not co2. Because combustion requires oxygen to burn and o2 (oxygen) only exists as two molecules. When combustion occurs the oxygen is used as a part of the combustion we are left with carbon monoxide, not CO2. I looked in to this further. You get two types of combustion incomplete and complete combustion. Incomplete combustion is the most common type of combustion. Complete combustion requires re-oxidising the carbon after combustion. This is why we have catalytic converters in cars. The Catalytic converter, which was an amazing invention, reoxidises the carbon monoxide and converts it to the much cleaner and invisible carbon dioxide. CO2 is not an official pollutant at the EPA and has never been classified as a pollutant. Plants use CO2 and humans exhale CO2. CO2 is used to put out fires in fire extinguishers. Co2 is used in the food industry, Every coke can has CO2 in it. If we could make CO2 a by product of combustion it would be an amazing feat because we would no longer be pumping pollutants in the atmosphere.

 

It is very much like ancient rome, 2000 years later and we still have the same tactics. Controlling science and the population. Don't get me started on the carbon trading market and the carbon credits and carbon tax. They want you to believe that humans are a walking chimney stick. I think it is a conspiracy by the big polluters they hijacked the environmental movement thanks to AL gore and his inconvenient truth. Now everyone thinks that you get co2 from incomplete combustion and that co2 is a pollutant. They even showed that lecture to every school in the country for several years. While the environmental movement is focused on CO2 output, the big polluters can pump out real actual pollutants without much attention. That part is just my own speculation.

 

I should add that what i have just said is not accepted by most people and that you will find a lot of incorrect and false science online regarding combustion and pollution.

 

http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/urbanair/

Except that you are burning hydrocarbons, not carbon.  I know that if you burn methane you get water and co2,  so ?ch4 + ?O2 = ?h20 + ? CO2.  The ? are numbers, but I don't remember how it balances.

[GregMerwe]

Except that you are burning hydrocarbons, not carbon.  I know that if you burn methane you get water and co2,  so ?ch4 + ?O2 = ?h20 + ? CO2.  The ? are numbers, but I don't remember how it balances.

 

Well you don't burn methane in your car or your wood fire. Of course different fuels will have different by products. Even if you burn natural gas in a house the risk is carbon monoxide poisoning not co2 poisoning. That is why houses that use gas come with CO detectors. If you have a coal BBQ again it is CO that is at risk of causing death, that is why they say you should never bring a bbq inside your house after it is out or in your tent while you are sleeping. Particulate matter or smoke is essentially non reoxidised carbon molecules that did not rebound even with a single molecule of oxygen. This is why when your catalytic converter fails in your car you get a dirty smoke out the back, both CO and CO2 are invisible to humans naked eye. It is the particulate matter and CO that is cleaned by reoxidising the carbon molecules post combustion.

[Donnadogsoth]

Here's a site dedicated to the ice age theory.

 

http://ice-age-ahead-iaa.ca/

[hannahbanana]

I just find it amusing that so many organizations that are die-hard global warming supporters are now also saying this...like two opposites can be existing at the same time. I found a video talking about the sun's behavior in relation to the earth's climate, it's really quite interesting:

[Pelafina]

If this is true, which southern states are good picks to make real estate investments in?

[Torero]

No one has any idea what the sun is going to do, possibly not even how it works

This.

 

Don't forget lots of people profit from these psychological operations of "predicting" the "global" climate. The Antropogenic Global Warmongering Scam is not scary anymore (as real warming is absent), so they'll look for other ways to guide the public opinion the way they want even if their "new baby" is contradicting their previous fantasies.

[GregMerwe]

I do think that carbon burning activity could lead to climate changes and not necessarily warming. I think the west has already reduced pollution output or has peaked at their pollution output, although that remains to be seen, depending on population density growth. The peak was the height of the industrial revolution and the start of the synthetic industries. Looking at china now they relatively recently went through the same level of pollution that the west once went through. Although i do think because of population density china is far worse. In the west it was perfectly normal for factories to pollute in to rivers right in the heart of major cities. I have always said that if carbon burning activity has a negative effect on the planet it will come in a few ways. Affecting the earth through sink holes and earthquakes and instability and climate intensity or instability. Where the balance between the gases in the atmosphere goes out of proportion because of too much pollution leading to the climate instability and intensity. For example prolong drought, prolong cloud cover and rain and so on. I think any ice age would have to coincide with a lot of cloud cover. If the planets rotation is static as we think it is then prolong cloud cover would be the only catalyst for an ice age. Of course i stand to be corrected if anyone has any thoughts?

[AccuTron]

This.

 

Don't forget lots of people profit from these psychological operations of "predicting" the "global" climate. The Antropogenic Global Warmongering Scam is not scary anymore (as real warming is absent), so they'll look for other ways to guide the public opinion the way they want even if their "new baby" is contradicting their previous fantasies.

Search "carbon billionaire" and read about Al Gore and his henchmen with shady connections.

[A4E]

Affecting the earth through sink holes and earthquakes and instability and climate intensity or instability. Where the balance between the gases in the atmosphere goes out of proportion because of too much pollution leading to the climate instability and intensity. For example prolong drought, prolong cloud cover and rain and so on. I think any ice age would have to coincide with a lot of cloud cover. If the planets rotation is static as we think it is then prolong cloud cover would be the only catalyst for an ice age. Of course i stand to be corrected if anyone has any thoughts?

This is similar to some plant food alarmists in that every earthquake, tornadoes, tsunami, etc, is blamed on humans. Plants will eat the plant food, and the planet will continue to do what it does regardless, as it has always done.

 

The much more immediate global crisis is that polished cars are reflecting sunlight into space, which is going to make the planet cool down. This global cooling is endangering camels, as they can only survive in a warm climate. (camel_in_distress.gif). We will force everyone to pay an extra fee whenever they buy car polish, and we will have websites where you can pay for your si... uh give your fair share of the car polish you have used before. We will use the money to increase awareness of the impending doom if people do not stop polishing their cars. And we will use the money to buy more nicely polished luxury ca... uh I mean take care of our planet by imposing 50 degree angled reflectors on top of all cars.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

This is similar to some plant food alarmists in that every earthquake, tornadoes, tsunami, etc, is blamed on humans. Plants will eat the plant food, and the planet will continue to do what it does regardless, as it has always done.

 

The much more immediate global crisis is that polished cars are reflecting sunlight into space, which is going to make the planet cool down. This global cooling is endangering camels, as they can only survive in a warm climate. (camel_in_distress.gif). We will force everyone to pay an extra fee whenever they buy car polish, and we will have websites where you can pay for your si... uh give your fair share of the car polish you have used before. We will use the money to increase awareness of the impending doom if people do not stop polishing their cars. And we will use the money to buy more nicely polished luxury ca... uh I mean take care of our planet by imposing 50 degree angled reflectors on top of all cars.

You realize, in your story, you switched from the advocation against reflection to the advocation for reflection ?

Did you ever watch the BBC documentary Global Dimming? In my opinion that unknowingly sets up a very valid counter theory to co2 based global warming theory. In the documentary they basically come to the conclusion that the air planes exhaust, as I call it, is creating a pollution barrier that reduces the evaporation rate. In the documentary they of course refer to the planes exhaust as contrails. Which is another questionable aspect. Do jet engines that burn petroleum based carbon fuels not have a by product of combustion. What is the by product of combustion? I learned in science class when i was 14-15 that the basic scientific equation for combustion was C+o2=CO not co2.

Carbon fuels also have Hydrogen. Hydrogen is turned into H2O, maybe you want to check SRM (very creative stuff).

Simply google the molecule (aka chemical composition) of any carbon fuel like oil, propane, butane, octane. Edit: They are also called hydro-carbures (crude translation form french) for that reason.

[A4E]

You realize, in your story, you switched from the advocation against reflection to the advocation for reflection ?

 

Just like with most 'solutions' to the plant food hysteria, I am delighted to see that my hasty parody solution does not really make sense either. Thanks.

[GregMerwe]

Carbon fuels also have Hydrogen. Hydrogen is turned into H2O, maybe you want to check SRM (very creative stuff).

Simply google the molecule (aka chemical composition) of any carbon fuel like oil, propane, butane, octane. Edit: They are also called hydro-carbures (crude translation form french) for that reason.

 

Of course refined carbon is going to have different chemical properties, often the fuels are made cleaner or made to appear cleaner and often made to be as efficient as possible economically. This does not necessarily mean that burning the refine fuels results in a primary by product of co2. I have seen the advanced combustion formula that some of the advanced fuel manufactures have come out with. I won't doubt that they have managed to make combustion cleaner, the point it that it is made cleaner because it is more co2 based.

 

The common types of by products from combustion, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Dioxide, Lead and particulate matter, as well as other carcinogenic by products. CO2 in terms of its carcinogenic level is relatively low. Consider that humans exhale CO2, when thinkings about its relative carcinogenic level. The trick was to say that through the green house effect, which may still be a valid theory in of it self, the when co2 increases it leads to warming. Then equating increases in co2 with human carbon combustion as the primary source. Meanwhile volcanoes and other natural sources result in more co2 than carbon combustion of hydro carbons. I think aiming to have only co2 emitting during combustion of carbon based fuels is a good goal if your endeavour is to create cleaner air.

[Alan C.]

GLOBAL COOLING: Decade long ice age predicted as sun 'hibernates'

 

 

Full episode