mini ice age could be on the way and it’s going to get very, very cold

The question was not what I believe but what you claim I typed....dodge noted.

 

So you don't type what you believe? Interesting.

 

I think we have a pretty good idea of what caused and ended the LIA. We certainly don't have all of the answers but the evidence suggests the Maunder Minimum in conjunction with increased volcanism were significant contributing factors. Likewise the waning of these factors is what ended it.

 

I always type what I believe, you then claim I typed things I didn't. But just to be clear here:

YRS I believe our climate is changing and human contribution/Industry are a big part of it.
NO I do not believe science has agreed on the reason the last "Ice Age" happened.

On these I have been quite clear and explained why.....I did NOT however type what you say I did.

 

And there's definitely a consensus as to what is causing the warming today. There's even a consensus on how much the warming will be. The consensus is a range of 1.5C to 4.5C with a median value of 3.0C for a doubling of CO2. As we learn more that range will likely shrink...maybe. I say maybe because the high end of 4.5C is somewhat of a mystery still because scientist aren't sure which of the many tipping points get activated and how much that will add to the warning. The IPCC is taking a measured and conservative tack right now which is probably the right move at this stage.

 

See post #117

"It is suggested here that the linear change may be due to the fact that the Earth is slowly
recovering from the Little Ice Age, although the cause of the Little Ice Age is unknown at the
present time."

 

So we agree more than disagree. We agree that science has not agreed on what caused the LIA and we half agree on what's causing climate change today. You say man "is a big part if it" while I agree with the study I linked you to that says man is likely a very small part of it but neither one of us says man is the primary driver unless you are going to change your story once again that is.

 

Your disingenuous style is annoying but, I'll play along and drop the whole putting words in my mouth complaint. I have seen the data in your link before and well understand the hypothesis behind the accompanying opinions. While I will agree that Solar and atmospheric dynamics do indeed influence our climate the impact has been well documented and verified as minimal when compared to chemical composition and thermal reflectivity of the corresponding gasses. When this data is taken into account and combined with the effects of Ocean albedo/Ice and trending Methane/CO2 releases I have no choice but to accept the conclusions they point to.
Humans may not be the "Primary" driver of this but, we definitely contributed to and likely pushed us into the positive feedback loop we are experiencing.

 

As the link I gave you proves this is not anything near concensus-settled science. You choose to firmly believe one side of the equation while I choose to keep an open mind. Jury is far from in on this.

 

You again place your interpretation/words into my mouth and it is very annoying. At no point did I even hint at let alone state ANYTHING was in consensus or "Settled Science" and in fact was very clear what I DID type was my opinion. I can only conclude you have some kind of mental block or purposefully misrepresent what I say....this is very poor debate technique and eliminates the idea behind discussion so, either stop doing it or we are done here.

 

Even if the USA geographical average temp is 17 degrees F. in June, it will still be hotter than it should be due to globule warming.

 

Maybe I'm just having a tough time understanding your position which seems to shift constantly and when I try to nail it down it shifts again.

 

How is this confusing?

"YES I believe our climate is changing and human contribution/Industry are a big part of it.
NO I do not believe science has agreed on the reason the last "Ice Age" happened."

As that is on this very page and was meant to clarify my stance for you (and also agrees with everything I post) it is very difficult to accept you are simply confused.

 

Then we are full circle to where I said we have a lot in common and then you seemed offended by that and said NO WE DON'T!
We fully agree on the LIA and only disagree on AGW as to extent of man's contribution. The 90% agree number so often thrown around by warmers includes people like myself that say man may play some minimum role in climate change but they try to use that number to claim 90% agree man is the primary driver of climate and we have to do something immediately or we risk catastrophic results. You and I don't believe that. You believe man is "a big part of it" I believe man is a very small part of it but neither believe we are the primary driver of climate.

 

Yep. I read it. His argument is that because the Earth warmed on a linear trajectory that precludes us from knowing why it warmed. Aside from the fact that this is a ridiculous argument he fails to explain why he thinks the Maunder Minimum or hyperactive volcanism should be excluded as significant influencing factors of the LIA. He doesn't even mention them. He also makes other rookie mistakes like assuming that the trapped heat from greenhouse gases should have a perfect 1-to-1 correlation lower tropospheric temperatures. This is a rookie mistake because 90% of the heat goes into the ocean; not the atmosphere. But he only considers the atmosphere and entirely ignores the heat flux processes of the ocean. Just because Syun-Ichi Akasofu has no idea what the influencing factors of the LIA are doesn't mean everyone else is clueless. And just because he ignores 90% of the heat accumulated since WWII doesn't mean everyone else is too.

 

Just gotta laugh when some internet forum wannabe scientist has the nerve to call someone like Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center a "rookie" and thinks he is qualified to stand in judgement of his research.

 

Do you mean like you are doing?

 

How so? I merely referenced it.

 

And defended it, implying you judge it as accurate.

 

Never defended it it attacked it. I sourced it and pointed out the absurdity of some wannabe scientist in this forum who probably works in a warehouse attacking it.

 

Okay..this is not defensive?
"Just gotta laugh when some internet forum wannabe scientist has the nerve to call someone like Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center a "rookie" and thinks he is qualified to stand in judgement of his research. ".

 

No that's just fact. How is some nobody in this forum qualified to stand in judgement of a report by somebody with the qualifications of Syun-Ichi Akasofu ?

 

I believe the reasoning was detailed in the post you got defensive about and that which prompted your degradation of his character. Perhaps you missed that part in your rush to judgement.

Here 'ya go....no need to thank me:
"His argument is that because the Earth warmed on a linear trajectory that precludes us from knowing why it warmed. Aside from the fact that this is a ridiculous argument he fails to explain why he thinks the Maunder Minimum or hyperactive volcanism should be excluded as significant influencing factors of the LIA. He doesn't even mention them. He also makes other rookie mistakes like assuming that the trapped heat from greenhouse gases should have a perfect 1-to-1 correlation lower tropospheric temperatures. This is a rookie mistake because 90% of the heat goes into the ocean; not the atmosphere. But he only considers the atmosphere and entirely ignores the heat flux processes of the ocean. Just because Syun-Ichi Akasofu has no idea what the influencing factors of the LIA are doesn't mean everyone else is clueless. And just because he ignores 90% of the heat accumulated since WWII doesn't mean everyone else is too."

 

And once again that's this internet wannabe scientist opinion and I'll take it for what it's worth which is nothing.

 

I didn't say anything that wasn't true. Plus, you have to admit there's a lot of irony in being lectured on who is and isn't qualified when this thread is based on a report from someone who definitely isn't qualified and who twisted and misrepresented scientific research. That already misleading report was then further misrepresented when it was claimed that a NASA scientists thinks an ice age is imminent when he never said any such thing. Don't worry...I don't expect an apology or anything for that mistake. I'm already aware that skeptics/deniers aren't held to the same standards as everyone else.