http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/grand_minimum.pdf
It would appear so if the Sun is the true driver. I beleive the sun IS the true driver.
Many AGW proponants are starting to accept this possibility and that is in part why they are embracing the Maunder Minimum is coming. Because if the cooling is not as dramatic as the Little Ice age then CO2 is still relevant.
Scientists OTOH are not yet syaing that we have a definate repeat of the Maunder Minimum coming. Right now we are at Dalton Minimum as most likely. Greater probability of Maunder than we thought this time last year. The scary part is a growing minority is saying that we are seeing what is the "TRUE" normal for the sun returning. i.e. The interglacial period is OVER.
Only time will tell. Cooler weather is coming. How much cooler and for how long we do not yet know. for time, current concensus is a cooling period until at least 2030. This is why AGW proponants are latching on to a solar Maunder. If they convince the public of this and we only have a Dalton then of course CO2 and GHG gases in the atmosphere are why. Ture disaster would floow when the sun returns to a more active state, or so their arguement is.
>>Some1has2btherookie. We had 13 times the CO2 we have now, during the ordovician period and still we went into a major ice-age.<<
During the Ordovician there was one large continent (Gondwana). A period of tectonic activity released CO2 into the atmosphere and warmed the planet. As the amount of atmospheric CO2 dropped and the continent drifted over the South Pole, the planet experienced a relatively brief (geologically speaking) period of glaciation that was accompanied by the second most extreme extinction event in the planet’s history.
It’s hard to see how that supports your position.
Personally, my money is on mainstream climatologists.
"During the Ordovician, solar output was much lower than current levels. Consequently, CO2 levels only needed to fall below 3000 parts per million for glaciation to be possible. The latest CO2 data calculated from sediment cores show that CO2 levels fell sharply during the late Ordovician due to high rock weathering removing CO2 from the air. Thus the CO2 record during the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-...
These are just getting sadder, this is the same 'eminent' scientist who deniers where quoting on the the reason Mars polar cap was shrinking, back in 2007.
He was long retired even back then and has an honorary position, which is of course why your link is to SPP (a denier blog) and not a real science site.
Back then deniers used this link to push that story
http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/ne...
Sadly deniers seemed to miss that this link had a second page in which a number of actual eminent scientists said it was rubbish.
Now he has a new theory, with little gems like this
"These prognoses are confirmed by the Sun itself and the course of global temperature changes and the level of the World Ocean for the past 16 years."
As has been shown many many times there is little correlation between short term Solar cycles and rises or falls in climate, you can rant there is as much as you want and have your sock puppet account say you have made a great point as much as you want.
It wont change the documented facts that there was little cooling observed during the extended solar minimum of 2008-2010, 2010 was the warmest year in the modern record, 2009 also very warm.
A similar event back in 2013 also saw no evidence of cooling in fact it warmed between 1910 and 1915, unlike you I back that with evidence
http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/sc...
Deniers own pet theory of using 1998 comes back to bite on this one as well as this very warm year was also just after the solar minimum, so please tell us all what you base this correlation claim you keep making on.
What changes in sea level does he refer to, as the long term trend continues to be rise, which is in line with thermal expansion, how does the claim of 16 years (what happened to 15) of cooling make any sense if you use sea level, when this is what sea level has actually done.
http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/Integrated_Mu...
Or is this another case of rushing out a new theory because of a short term downward trend, I seem recall denier tried a similar thing back in early 2011 making similar claims, yet went very quite on the subject when it turned out to be a short term trend that ended rather quickly.
In the longer term, solar trends certainly don't affect the theory of AGW or the effects of increased Co2, solar influence is an outside influence that we have no control over and in spite of the claims of this bought and paid for denier scientist, no way to predict, certainly not out to the 2040's.
As for a possible LIA, how would we get that, we have already lifted the global average temp as much as the LIA is thought to have dropped it, another contributing factor to the LIA was a string of massive volcanic eruptions again we have no way to predict those either.
As you seem to like the word correlation (but not really understand it's meaning) here a small point your "eminent Russian scientist" fails to address, the scattered data we have on the Maunder Minimum shows a period when the last solar cycle maximum was up round the 120's for Sunspot activity then it just shut down, with pretty much no activity from 1650 to 1700,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspo...
So far what we have now is not that at all, but more like a lull seen in the solar cycle seen from the 1880's to the 1930's, 5 cycles when activity was lower on average than it is today. So where is the LIA from that, probably in the same place Abdussamatov keeps his scientific credibility.
Will we have another LIA - probably certainly, but nobody can predict when, deniers seem to love repeating this pseudo science and claiming Sunspot numbers are low but are they at the very low levels set by our one off example, the LIA.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/D...
Hardly, in fact a monthly average for Nov has numbers averaging around 120, yes during Nov there were a couple of days when it hit 47 & 51 but there where also days when it hit 270 & 280.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/D...
The average on the numbers here are 126 over the last 30 days.
not likely. At best we'd reduce the amount of warming that would occur. 'Eminent' other scientists this so.
According to his graph, there should not be any warming since 1980. Clearly Willie Soon would have fits. You can't have it both ways. Maybe you could get familiar with the little ice age.
No. There is already enough greenhouse gases in our atmosphere to offset a solar minimum. The current 11 year solar cycle has resulted in lower than normal solar activity and yet the planet continues to warm. Have no fear, Kano. We have already stacked on enough blanket to ward the effects of the cold.
Kano
During the ordovician period Earth was a much different planet than it is now. Nearly all of Earth's land masses were located in the southern hemisphere. Ocean currents and wind patterns were much different from modern Earth. You are trying to compare apples to oranges. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/ordovician/...
Solar output was also weaker during this earlier period in the sun's life. http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-... Again, you are comparing apples to oranges.
You may also be interested in this - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...
No No cooling No ice age and you already knew that
i think no
because of climate change !!!!
This eminent Russian scientist thinks so.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/grand_minimum.pdf
