Solar Scientists Predict ‘Mini-Ice Age’ in Next 15 Years (LENR Heat Could be Very Useful)

There are many news outlets reporting on research by of a group of solar scientists who are now predicting that the earth will be plunged into a ‘mini-ice age’ in around fifteen years time. Professor Valentina Zharkova of the University of Northumbria, UK, will present about this at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, Wales this week.

New research has apparently made much more accurate predictions possible due to a new understanding of irregularities in the sun’s 11-year cycle.

Here’s a summary From a UPI article here: (

Researchers, saying they understand solar cycles better than ever, predict that the sun’s normal activity will decrease by 60 percent around 2030 — triggering the “mini ice age” that could last for a decade. The last time the Earth was hit by such a lull in solar activity happened 300 years ago, during the Maunder Minimum, which lasted from 1645 to 1715.


“Combining both [magnetic] waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 percent,” Zharkova said.

We’ve heard a great deal over recent decades about how the earth is on track to heat up significantly over the next decades, but this is the first research I’ve heard recently that predicts a mini-ice age in the near future. Many people people are emphasizing that even though this cooling prediction may be accurate, it does not affect the long-term warming predictions based on increases in greenhouse gases.

However, a period significant global cooling could cause many difficulties around the world, with an increased need for fuel to survive periods of extended cold — and if cooling negatively affects crop yields there could be a lot of pressure on food supplies.

Andrea Rossi said just yesterday on the Journal of Nuclear Physics when I asked him about his goals for the E-Cat:

“I want to see the E-Cats make heat in all the world and this will be the first wave ( F9). This in homes and industries. The second wave will produce electric power. After this, will see in the crystal ball. Our weapon will be the competitiveness (F9)”

Maybe the first wave will be accomplished within 15 years to help us cope with much cooler weather, should the predictions of these solar scientists be accurate.

  • Christina

    Perhaps we should plan to farm indoors in huge buildings with several stories.


    • US_Citizen71

      Come to Colorado, we already farm indoors! ; )

    • friendlyprogrammer

      Why not grow plants on a moving assembly line where they start off as seeds at point A and are fully matured by the time they reach point B. This could already easily be done with water plants such as Algae, but might require some thinking to grow potatoes this way.

      • US_Citizen71

        That is a great idea!

        • friendlyprogrammer

          🙂 Thanks. Oddly enough the Algae assembly line was thought up by me years ago as a method of Carbon Sequestration followed by burial of the plant forms when not used as food or fuel.

      • Observer

        And what should we do for all the wild animals that live under harsh and unforgiving circumstances?

        Empathy is how we define being human (being humane). However, we should never assume another being would prefer not to exist rather than suffer the consequences of that existence.

        • friendlyprogrammer

          If we can improve the quality of life for farm animals at a minimum cost then I’d be willing to pay any extra cost for that meat/eggs.

          I think eating animals that led happy lives might be more nutritious to our body in some freaky esoteric way.

          Animals in the wild obviously are on their own, but also not under our care.

          But.. We can lessen impact and even start advertising responsible parenting in efforts to reduce global population. Mankind has proven to be harmful to a large number of species with roads gridding a bears play zone as just one example.

          I have buddhist zen type thinking where we are all just imaginary aspects of the same divided mind, so I think the chicken and my dog are both aspects of god. I also try to reduce my meat intake to help my karma in some small fashion.

          In all honesty, if it were my farm I’d have them all wearing little chicken raincoats when it rained and they would all die of old age with a six figure vet bill.

          I would help a spider improve the quality of its life if I could without too much bother, so I’d definitely be fixing up my farm if I had one.

  • bachcole

    Absolutely no surprise to me. Colorado Springs, perhaps because it is so high, may already have started.

  • friendlyprogrammer

    I don’t wish to dampen this topic as it seems in earnest, but man can never match within a fraction of a percentage point the energy that comes from the sun.

    Look at the solar constant compared with manufactured heating. Mankind could throw a boiled egg into the freezer, but it would not make a difference.

    We can pretend we might make a difference, but in reality we are more at the mercy of nature when it comes to heating.

    Although messing with our greenhouse gasses and knocking 10 000 species a year into extinction might not be our best game plan.

    • Alan DeAngelis
      • Roland

        If stupidity like this succeeds in preventing appropriate action being taken to mitigate what is already apparent to everyone but hopeless ideologues and devotees to the purchased opinions of the GOP you can expect your grandchildren to exact revenge on the perpetrators for leaving them a ravaged planet.

        Perhaps if you took the time to find out why ‘documentaries’ like this exist and who’s paying for them you’d change your tune.

        Here’s a broad hint, study the ‘documentaries’ supporting the tobacco industry…

        • Alan DeAngelis
          • friendlyprogrammer

            Global warming is not contestable. We know how to use thermometers.

            The only question is whether mankind has contributed towards it, and can mankind inhibit it from its current trends.

            ——————————- Projected outlooks….

            Further warming will continue if emissions of greenhouse gases continue.

            The global surface temperature increase by the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5 °C relative to the 1850 to 1900 period for most scenarios, and is likely to exceed 2.0 °C for many scenarios

            The global water cycle will change, with increases in disparity
            between wet and dry regions, as well as wet and dry seasons, with some
            regional exceptions.

            The oceans will continue to warm, with heat extending to the deep ocean, affecting circulation patterns.

            Decreases are very likely in Arctic sea ice cover, Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover, and global glacier volume

            Global mean sea level will continue to rise at a rate very likely to exceed the rate of the past four decades

            Changes in climate will cause an increase in the rate of CO2 production. Increased uptake by the oceans will increase the acidification of the oceans.

            Future surface temperatures will be largely determined by cumulative CO2, which means climate change will continue even if CO2 emissions are stopped.



            I know you prefer your information from Youtube, but real science exists.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            “The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science.”
            -Julian Schwinger

            Yes, I prefer YouTube.


          • Alan DeAngelis
          • friendlyprogrammer

            You had me convinced a few comments ago, but it had more to do with your sources of information and levels of sanity.

            I looked at your Enron link and it had NOTHING to do with global warming.. Absolutely nothing but telling us oil companies sponsored presidential advisors, etc. Nothing to do with the topic.

            Ugg. For whatever stupid reason i just clicked on your last link although i promised myself I wouldn’t and if it was not so stupid it would be laughable.

            I have a Theory why your views argue with facts


            Hey same newspaper as you quoted… must be true.

            When you are ready to look at real facts, then there is a beginning.

            Every country in the world has a stake in the Consequences of Global Warming. Surprisingly there is a worldwide organization which is aptly named “The United Nations” or “U.N.: for short.

            Since there is a lot of bozos out there suggesting GW is a scam, they put together a team of top scientists to look at the data.

            This team is called “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change”.

            I know you’d rather believe some girl named sally who created a GW scam video that your great Uncle Larry watched and explained it to you over buffalo wings and a beer one day, but there are better sources of information.

            The World Meteorological Organization… You will be surprised to know these blokes do not study meteors after all, but instead predict and follow weather patterns.

            Here is a link to the IPPC website. They may not be as “accurate” as your youtube…


            OR… You can get facts from your aunt Elsa or eve The Onion…


            I’m sorry, but I can actually feel my IQ dropping while discussing this with you.

            I give up.

          • Roland

            That is the challenge in dealing with the prevailing zeitgeist, science for sale to the highest bidder is most vividly on display in propagandistically intended ‘documentaries’ where so called scientists (who often have no qualifications in the subject at hand and sometimes no qualifications at all other than an ability to diminish those who are highly qualified in the eyes of the viewer) shill for evil purposes like getting people to keep smoking cigarettes.

            Hundreds of thousands of people died prematurely of cancer or heart disease, in N. America alone, by listening to ‘scientists’ who were subsequently proven to have deliberately lied, for money, to their fellow humans about the risks of tobacco addiction; or even about the ‘addict’ part. These lying scum of the earth deliberately induced people to continue to do themselves real, horrendous, life threatening damage so that their employers, ‘big tobacco’, could exact their drug money from an addicted populace and fend off the judgement day in court when the truth all came out.

            This marked the beginning of a huge slide in the general prestige enjoyed by science and scientists and the deeply held view that science was inherently beneficent.

            The irony in all this is that the current general disrespect for the motivations of contemporary scientists make some people prey to the kind of ‘scientist’ who’d sell your soul for a nickel and the delight of a guilty laugh, over drinks later, at humanity’s gullibility.

            The stupid and ignorant have always decried the ‘eggheads’; now they are joined by those still in the ‘denial stage’ of threatening change; their profound desire not to know prevents them from acquiring the intellectual tools needed for an adequate B.S. detector.

            This growing resistance to critical thinking, and evidence based decision making, make easy prey for those who have used science to study how to manipulate individuals, crowds, public opinion, consumption, legal systems, government and belief structures.

            A systematic methodology has been developed based on the ‘big tobacco’ conceptually multi-pronged approach to gaming the system with group co-ordination and financing of legal delays, government lobbying, legislative initiatives, falsified research papers and propaganda in the knowledge that these tactics can buy you decades before the economic and legal consequences come due.

            The lawyers do very well; they suggest doing all this stuff cause A. it works and B. the fees are literally in the billions.

            The folks that can be convinced to keep smoking by a few paid liars and falsified studies in the face of overwhelming evidence that they should quite while they still can are, to quote Stalin, useful idiots.

            Social manipulation has become a fine art; the most useful contemporary idiots are sure that everyone else but they have fallen prey to it.

            AGW is an IQ and EQ test for both individuals and our species, LENR holds the promise of survival for countless lifeforms and millions of people living in the poorest and most vulnerable regions of the planet.

            The popular cant that many of the ideas we now know to be correct were once vilified, like cold fusion, completely misses the common thread that what was shunned by the deniers was the actual data. No, we won’t look in your telescope as we already know how the heavens are arranged thank you.

            They put theory, or other interests, ahead of what demonstrably is.

            Just as anyone that actual learns enough to read the extant literature on LENR profitably will come away with the understanding that there’s something to this, anyone that actually learns enough to read the extant literature on AGW profitably will develop legitimate concerns for our children’s futures.

          • friendlyprogrammer

            Obviously we share a interest in writing… lol

            Your last paragraph sums up my views also. The bit about smoking though I think comes from peoples desires to be thin and suicidal tendencies. They once marketted a popular cigarette called “death”, and it didn’t hurt sales a bit. The packaging was black with Skull and Crossbones on it.. Fairly honest.


          • Job001

            More than 97% of climate scientists agree climate change is anthropomorphic. Oil company studies by non-climate scientists disagree due to “funding bias”. The “temperature fiddling” political/media attacks were oil funded also. Such attacks are “funding bias based” than scientific, IMO.

          • Jimr

            I constantly hear the 97% figure. A questionIre was sent to over 3000 weather techs., they had 89 respondents, of the 89, 87 said rise in temp caused be humans. Now that’s an accurate representation?

          • Job001

            Good point yet shallow it seems.

            Of 3,893 published experts who expressed a position, 3,780 endorsed (97.1%) AGW. It appears the best of published experts are substantially and statistically in agreement. Many other studies also exist which an unbiased goggler can find readily.


          • bachcole


      • friendlyprogrammer

        I prefer peer reviewed articles in Nature (journal), over youtube.

        My comment above was concerning the BTU’s per square foot the sun produces constantly, compared to what mankind could produce on its best day. It did not concern GW.

        I am aware that GW exists however.

        It does exist. The arguments put forth by the radical set was that it does exist, but it is not caused by man.

        We are likely looking a a 3°C overall impact, but that is a full degree higher than the dander zone.

        I have come to think that old dudes with no children argue against GW to avoid tax increases. I have a bunch of children, so I’m looking at it without the rose colored glasses.

        For the record however I have also produced Youtube Videos on GW. That does not make me right either.

        Bottom line… The Earth is not in any danger from global warming. Just the people who currently dwell on it.

        • Roland

          Bottom line, most humans can adapt and/or lean on technology for some time while innumerable other species are crushed out of existence with unknown ecological implications.

          Recent research revealed that the paleontological record shows that in previous natural climatological shifts a one degree Celsius change in the average global temperature typically takes a million years.

          We are about to accomplish this in just over 200 years.

          • friendlyprogrammer

            I agree Roland… But you’re quoting facts.. These GW skeptics don’t use those.

          • Observer

            And why do you think current CO2 levels are more optimal for life than they were 650,000 years ago. There is a reason why greenhouses artificially increase the CO2 level – plants grow better. The “circle of life” has been steadily loosing CO2 to fossilization for hundreds of millions of years.

          • friendlyprogrammer

            I disagree with your logic on this point.

            The fact is we do not know for sure one way or the other how CO2 and fast temperature changes will affect us.

            As Roland also said, “one degree Celsius change in the average global temperature typically takes a million years.
            We are about to accomplish this in just over 200 years.”

            So within a very short time frame with a ratio of 200:1 000 000 global temperature has risen a full degree.

            There are 600 million cars and trucks on this planet burning carbon for fuel daily.

            The planet needs to start looking at things like population control, or Earth will simply control our population itself.

            I am addressing this briefly, but I am done with arguing about GW here. Read a book.

            We get it.. you advise we do nothing and it is perfectly normal. Not exactly the pro active choice I think would be at least somewhat prudent, but it is a choice.

            So… is it going to kill us to stop using fossil fuels and adding a bit of plant life? Because that is the just of what is being proposed.

            Everyone here (LENR FORUM) should be screaming “GLOBAL WARMING” at the top of your lungs whether you believe it or not, because ALTERNATIVE ENERGY R&D FUNDING HAS INCREASED BECAUSE OF GW.

            So ignore the problem and hope it goes away on its own.. Gotcha.. Our “circle of life” is eliminating 10 000 species annually from it.

            Was losing 10 000 species a year also a part of world history, or is that unique to this day and age? Hmmm.

          • Observer

            Humans are so good at adapting to a change that we artificially create thing
            to adapt to. We live on every continent on earth. We can even survive at the bottom of the ocean or on the surface of the moon.

            All of the fossil fuels that we are converting to CO2 were originally CO2 in the first place. Increasing CO2 increases the amount of plant life and decreases the amount of water required to sustain that plant life. We have over seven billion people on earth today because we can feed them. The more CO2, the more plants; the more plants, the more people.

            This is what you really fear: More People

            Get over your self loathing and smell the roses.

          • friendlyprogrammer

            Your mere seven billion people will be over 10 billion before my kids are middle aged. The population math is only heading in one direction.

            I would think at least encouraging people to have smaller families might be prudent. I know I’ve contributed to overpopulation as I have more than two children.

            The impact mankind has on animals is well documented. Mankind may be able to adapt to the moon, but if we send a species like “bees” into extinction we might cause a lot of starvation.

            Earth will be fine. It is the people trying to live on it that might be in for surprises.

            Mankind will survive, but it will be sad to see mass starvation as a way to reduce out ranks.

          • Observer

            We will only have as many people as we can feed.

            If one group decides to save the planet by not having children, another group will gladly take up the slack.

            Have you seen any Shakers around lately? Those that have taken their place thank them for their wonderful furniture.

          • friendlyprogrammer

            Your seven billion people will be more than ten billion before my kids are middle aged, and we know mankind is causing extinctions and harming a variety of habitats.

            It should be at least prudent to start advertising for global population controls, but there is no corporation that will profit from that so why bother?

            Mankind can adapt to living on the moon, but put if we make a species like “bees” become extinct there will be mass starvation.

            The Earth will be fine; it is just the people that live on it that need to worry.

            If not now, then when should we worry about overpopulation? When your family is starving?

            How many people can the world support? 8 Billion? 10 billion? 12 Billion? If the population will be above 10 billion in the next 35 years, then how long before we reach 20 billion? I bet never…

          • Zack Iszard

            TL;DR: AGW proponents are less likely to make sound logical arguments than AGW opponents, because the appeal to popularity favors AGW. In my opinion (from an incomplete stack of evidence) CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas – water vapor is. More importantly, many aspects of climate study do not receive the fanfare of CO2 hate, limiting the holistic understanding of the immensely complex climate we all depend on.

            Man, after perusing some comments below (a few which more than verge on flaming), I come to an interesting conclusion. Those who oppose the popular AGW explanation tend to adhere to a strong bit of due diligence with regard to fact-finding and references, as well as good sentence construction and impeccable grammar. They also often avoid the low-hanging fruit of logical fallacy such as the appeal to popularity or authority. On the other hand, if you’re a fan of AGW, appealing to popularity usually suffices to quell the cognitive dissonance from opposition to your beliefs. I’m not trying to make a value statement on the beliefs themselves, I’m merely remarking about the logical texture of the two sides, as derived from the admittedly limited sample of comments on this post.

            As far as my opinion goes, the simplicity of the “it’s all CO2” argument is pretty disappointing, mainly because it misses the more drastic and worrisome aspects of the way that climate works. Water vapor, long known to be the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, has been demonstrated to amplify any warming effects from other greenhouse gases quite considerably. Short-chain alkanes and small hydrocarbons (natural gas, propane, gasoline, kerosene, diesel) all release about as many molecules of water during combustion as CO2. Yes, it may seem insignificant, especially since the mass of water emitted this way is literally drops in the oceans, but this is water produced by chemical reactions in large quantities in places where no natural evaporative water source exists – mostly urban environments. The effects of intense local disturbances on the climate as a whole are barely understood, but I think are more profound than the CO2 = AGW crowd would want to admit. How about seas of pavement? Man-made lakes in the desert? If you think about those situations and consider that everything is as it was before humans came along, I urge you to read about the physics involved in atmospheric heat flow.

            It may well be understood, years from now, that CO2 was but a minor player in climate change, more of a symptom than a cause, and that overt focus on this one substance was a folly.

            To this end, the widespread adoption of LENR for energy generation will quite obviously reduce reliance on the burning of fossil fuels. Then again, current systems designed to extract useful energy from fossil fuels are relatively efficient. Systems designed around LENR may neglect efficiency (BECAUSE THERE”S SO MUCH ENERGY IN THIS NICKEL HOLY COW!!!!) at the expense of excess heat – and likely cooling water – getting dumped wholesale into the atmosphere. We may not see a stop in the current warming trend if this is the case. Again, I shame the overt Ivory Tower focus on CO2 as the sole culprit. But of course, who doesn’t love a good ego-boosting round of shaming others you dislike? I would bet that money has been diverted away from climate change studies that focus on something besides CO2’s impact on numerous occasions, never mind the obvious worldwide IPCC-driven group-think on the issue, stifling original thought if it doesn’t jive with the ruling mantra. Of course here I’m getting dogmatic myself, and beating a fairly dead anti-AGW horse, but the possibility still exists.

            At the end of the day, good science is the best bet. But it has to be science, and it has to be good.

        • bachcole

          I prefer peer reviewed articles in Nature (journal), over youtube.” Did you see the great article in Nature about LENR? Oops, sorry about that, there was no article in Nature about LENR!! How could you be here and believe in LENR and have such a mega-disconnect when it comes to another subject?

      • bachcole


    • Job001

      Chopping down most of the forests(lungs of the earth) may have a greater impact than CO2 than fossil fuels. However, forest reduction is still “anthropomorphic” having an integral rather than additive effect.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        Aside from just being the lungs of the earth (although most of Earths lungs comes from Algae/seaweed), you can also think of every tree as a CO2 storage unit. Even people are “carbon bags of mostly water” (Where did I hear that?)

        Our fossil fuels were once living creatures and plants.

        A tree rotting in the forest is releasing its CO2 back into the atmosphere.

        If that same tree were to be buried deep in the ground however, we could subtract that carbon from entering our atmosphere.

        Yes. I would like to see Rainforest sized Algae farms in the ocean, where wave power could pump nutrients from the ocean floor or other locations. I live in Canada where we plant more trees than we cut (in theory.. i’m not sure)..

    • Observer

      We do not have to heat the whole planet, just our greenhouses. A mini-ice age will create many extinctions, but we will not be one of them.

  • Daniel Maris

    A 15 year mini ice age would be most useful. Most bank analysts are predicting unsubsidised solar plus storage will beat all other energy forms on price across virtually the whole of the planet within the next 20 years. It will give us time to adjust and take the carbon out of our energy economy – a necessary precautionary act in my view, given the paucity of our knowledge of how our climate works.

    • bachcole

      I don’t mind since most efforts toward reducing carbon emissions will also reduce real pollution, which is killing the human race. But I hope that my tax money does not go to supporting carbon sequestration, which I consider ridiculous and absurdly expensive and harmful. We need about 1000 ppm CO2. We still have a way to go.

  • Observer

    Not only will the normal heating of the earth by the sun be reduced by a solar minimum, but so will the amount of heat trapped by green house gasses. Current effects of green house gasses are already being masked by “normal variation”.

    • georgehants

      Global Temperatures Have Been Falling Since 1999
      Natural climate cycles have changed from their warming phase to
      cooling phase, and this means that contrary to popular belief the global
      temperature has been declining for more than 10 years, and will
      continue to decline for another 20 or so.
      This evidence was presented last week at the seventh International Climate Change
      Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute. Several prominent
      natural scientists provided serious and credible evidence in calm,
      dispassionate presentations, based on reams of factual data. In sharp
      contrast to the manner of these presentations, climate alarmists have
      been unable to provide sufficient data to defend their claims that
      humans are causing catastrophic global warming.

  • Warthog

    Ah, but if you want the atmosphere to HEAT, CO2 is not the gas of choice. That would be SF6 (sulfur hexafluoride), with a FAR greater “greenhouse gas” than CO2. Easily dispersed by stratospheric-flying jets, very stable to photochemical decomposition (so no “ozone hole/depletion). Of course the problem then becomes….how do you get rid of it after the sun “hots up” again.

    • Daniel Maris

      I’m always amazed how little attention is given to water vapour – also thought on balance to be a greenhouse gas (although it also reflects solar radiation). The huge increase in irrigation for agriculture means vast more amounts of water vapour are getting into the atmosphere than was the case.

      • bachcole

        I confess that I do not know of my own experience whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and I will accept other people’s word for it. But,

        (1) H2O is so much more plentiful that I just don’t see how even twice as much CO2 could make much difference,

        (2) Plant life is expanding. Is it enough to compensate for the affect that CO2 is having on the climate?

      • Warthog

        Yes, but the effect of water vapor is rapidly equilibrated by the formation of clouds, which change the albedo of the atmosphere resulting in increased cooling. The “Warmists” have for years claimed (wrongly) that clouds couldn’t affect planetary warming.

        • bachcole

          I am just an intuitive sort of scientist, and that just doesn’t make any sense at all.

          • Warthog

            Which part?? That clouds change albedo, or that the “Wamists” said they couldn’t??

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Volcanoes emit sulfur containing compounds and some fluoride containing compounds (like HF and CFCs). So, I was wondering if they emit any
      sulfur hexafluoride, SF6 and sure enough they do.

      • Warthog

        Good find and information. I was aware of the sulfur and fluorine in volcanic gases, but hadn’t connected that to the possible existence of a natural SF6 geocycle.

  • georgehants
    • bachcole

      Oh, fiddlesticks, George! You know that friendlyprogrammer said that we don’t deal in facts. You cheated. You published a fact.

  • georgehants
    • bachcole

      More annoying facts from that renegade georgehants.


    • GranFaloSentado

      Medieval warming… Because of inquisition’s burnings. No, wait, inquisition was stablished in late 15th century.

      Then it was Mohammad’s farts.

      • georgehants

        Today it is science that does the burning, Pons and Fleischmann and any other Rebel that speaks against the holy scientific inquisition.

      • we all know inquisition is not dead, they burned fleischmann&pons.

        about AGW, the problem if real is solved, if different is solved, else we can adapt.

        this history is interesting for epistemology and group psychology.

        the biggest reason to critic LENr skeptic and AGW supporters is that they claim absolute certainty in a domain where there is clear reason to ask for more precision, and to doubt the mainstream theory with data.

        for those interested in good reason to act ,about AGW and good way, look at some posts of Judith Curry. She was IPCC and is mostly lukewarmer questioner…

        there is good solution to AGW and non-AGW possibilities, like increasing wealth of the poor, increasing technology and knowledge, saving energy effectively, developing technology that may still be impractical (renewable) without deploying it however (as we do)…

        many people neglect the huge risk to be wrong in supporting AGW theory, or non AGW theory, as we are losing resources and opportunities to support only one scenario, or losing time in doing business as usual.

        in france some region have dumped their snow cleaner trucks, and since a decade this looked really stupid.

        like me you can have an opinion, but when you propose a policy it must resist the hypothesis you are wrong.
        that is what most AGW supporters and AGW opponents refuse to do.

        that is what LENR skeptic refuse to do.

        Judith Curry propose that we use “no-regret” solution for all proposed hypotheses, global warming, burning, cooling,icing, wet , dry, as usual, and blackswan climate. I support that vision.
        the AGW theory when you look at it is not solid (model are broke and diverging with reality and with themselves, data are more tweaked than MIT/caltech calorimetry curves), but there is a clear possibility that it may not be totally wrong in theory, and why not in reality. This have to be respected like ice-age theory, like LENR, Emdrive…

        • US_Citizen71

          It is the ancient problem of us vs them. No one likes to compromise or leave open the possibility that they could be wrong and the default reaction to encountering a different view point usually is if you’re not 100% behind me you’re 100% against me. Someday as a species we will learn to put logic before emotion when dealing with important matters.

  • psi2u2

    I doubt it. Some of have followed this for several years and are not at all surprised. This is a very real and present threat that desrves much greater attention, imho.

  • Roland

    Though University of Northumbria mathematics professor Valentina Zharkova, who led the sunspot research, did find that the magnetic waves that produce sunspots (which are associated with high levels of solar activity) are expected to counteract one another in an unusual way in the coming years, the press release about her research mentions nothing about how that will affect the Earth’s climate. Zharkova never even used the phrase “mini ice age.” Meanwhile, several other recent studies of a possible solar minimum have concluded that whatever climate effects the phenomenon may have will be dwarfed by the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

    Full article at:

    • GreenWin

      The dear old WaPo struggles mightily when climate news does not fit their agenda. This particular denial is a prime example of climate FUD. While Ms Zharkova did not use the common name for the Maunder minimum (mini ice age) – according to the Royal Astronomical Society she did not hesitate to emphasize the study’s prediction of same:

      “In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other, peaking at the
      same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. We predict that this
      will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum,’
      ” Ms. Zharkova said at the meeting, as reported by the Royal Astronomical Society.”

  • GreenWin

    Unfortunate if you live in a greenhouse. Few do. But it does suggest we should legislate CO2 out of beer, wine and soda. The slogan could be “Decarbonate for smarter kids!”

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Sandy

    When the Sun’s magnetic field contracts (as indicated by fewer Sun spots) the number of cosmic rays that come into the Solar System and impact Earth’s atmosphere increases. Those rays trigger high-altitude clouds made of highly reflective ice crystals. This reduces the amount of solar radiation that reaches Earth’s surface and that is re-radiated as infrared light and then reflected back to Earth’s surface to cause global warming.

    Only 0.1 percent of the infrared light is reflected back to Earth’s surface by greenhouse gasses (including carbon dioxide). The cooling caused by higher cosmic ray impacts on Earth’s atmosphere makes the heating caused by greenhouse gasses insignificant. So we will not have devastating Anthropogenic Global Warming. Instead, as Earth’s crust continues to cool, more and more volcanic magma chambers will be squeezed and “Bang!” we will have progressively more volcanic eruptions. The dust added to the atmosphere by those eruptions will cause a further cooling of this planet’s oceans, continents, and atmosphere.

    You may have watched videos of nuclear particles ripping through “cloud chambers” and triggering clouds. That is what is happening more frequently in Earth’s upper atmosphere as the Sun’s magnetic field contracts and more cosmic rays hit the upper atmosphere and cause the formation very highly reflective clouds made of ice crystals.

    Earth’s albedo is going up and surface temperatures will be going down. So buy a thick, well-insulate coat while supplies last.

  • pg

    finally one good news for the polar bears.

    • MikeP

      Not really. Polar bears suffer when the spring ice is too thick and they can’t get their main food supply of seals. Polar bears usually don’t eat much during the summer months …

    • Omega Z

      One of the biggest stupidities are people who think the world is of a static nature. This world has never been of a static nature. It’s an illusion because the change tends to be gradual. It is always in flux either warming or cooling.

      The warming trend ended the Ice Age before human population could possibly be of ANY consequence and continued until the mini ice age caused by the Maunder Minimum 300 years ago. The warming trend then resumed. All before the Industrial age even began.(Late 1700’s)

      Note the beginning of the Industrial age didn’t amount to much. Consider the World population & this began in Great Britain. Even the Industrial Revolution didn’t start till the mid19th century and again involved only a small fraction of the world population. When all data is taken into account, it does not fit the term correlation thus can not be called cause & effect. The Industrial age is merely a coincidence. What came 1st. CO2 or warming? Warming- followed by CO2 increase.

      Note that 1 scientist agreed we probably didn’t cause the problem, but are only speeding up the time frame of an existing phenomena by 20 years or so. And many others scientists have parroted this. If you believe this, it tells you all you need to know. With or without humans, it is inevitable. A smart species would be looking to adapt. Not standing if front of a speeding train.

      The fact is we have neither the long term data nor the technology to determine anything beyond a few days with any certainty. Even then it’s comparable to a coin toss. No computer model is accurate or right, tho they hesitate not to claim so. In fact, they will make claims based on models that don’t fit the real world data.

      This all falls under 1 classification. A Politician should never let a crisis real or perceived go to waste. Exploit it for personal gain. Many others including Scientists & business leaders know this very well.

      I conclude with, I believe we are in a warming trend that started near the middle of the last ice age & continues today. It was not started by man & we can’t stop it. Thinking so is just our arrogance. I would point out that had this not happened, Humanity & most other life would probably be extinct by now. At most we would number in the very low 1000’s. According to DNA studies, All humanity can be traced back to less then a dozen people. We barely missed an extinction event.

  • georgehants

    It would seem to suggest that Global CO2 emissions are down 25% since 2000, disregarding the CO2 released in the production of these devices.
    What harm is this doing to the World and will it help lead to another ice-age?
    International Energy Agency
    Against this backdrop, governments have put in place supportive policies. As a result,
    renewable sources have been the driver of much of the growth in the
    global clean energy sector since the year 2000.
    The role of renewable sources in the global power mix, in particular,
    continues to increase rapidly. On a percentage basis, renewables
    continue to be the fastest-growing power source. As global renewable
    electricity generation expands in absolute terms, it is expected to
    surpass that from natural gas and double that from nuclear power by
    2016, becoming the second most important global electricity source,
    after coal. Globally, renewable generation is estimated to rise to 25%
    of gross power generation in 2018, up from 20% in 2011 as deployment
    spreads out globally.

  • Allan Kiik

    Of course it is about climate and this solar lull was predicted decades ago, first by Theodor Landscheidt and more recently by others, like Habibullo Abdussamatov from Pulkovo –

    This is far more convincing than all the alarmist crap we are getting from mainstream media & climatists.

  • GreenWin

    This is an unsurprising study as others have predicted Mauder-type minimums in the same time frame.

    “Climate change has been a perplexing problem for years. In Dark Winter,
    scientist John L. Casey, a former White House national space policy adviser, NASA headquarters consultant, and space shuttle engineer tells
    the truth about ominous changes taking place in the climate and the Sun.

    In Dark Winter, Casey argues that a decrease in the Sun’s
    activity led to an abrupt end to global warming in 2007, as the earth
    entered a new solar minimum a 30-year period that will lead to record
    cold weather across the globe.”

    Casey does sensationalize some cooling effects, predicting crop failure and food riots. Both climate camps, warmist and coolists use exaggeration to sell their books to fearful sheeple. As Monsters Inc. CEO H. J. Waternoose III would say, “We Scare Because We Care.”

  • GreenWin

    Repudiation of science antithetical to consensus “climate” dogma is a threat to the Washington Post. Curious as to why no other mainstream newspaper is as threatened as WaPo. WaPo’s readership is greatest in the Federal DC area – where climate dogma and alarmism suckles at the government teat.

    The climate campaign’s purpose is to convince lawmakers and the public they are nefarious gluttons of energy – and being roundly shamed by the ivory tower, they should pony up billions in “carbon taxes.” At an earlier time the tower/Inquisition would demand recantation (e.g. Galileo’s heliocentrism), self-flagellation, animal sacrifice or…(sarc) throwing oneself into an active volcano.

    Here we have credentialed scientists predicting a magnetic null in the Sun will reduce insolation, increase cosmic ray cloud production resulting in a new Maudner Minimum – aka “mini-ice age.” But WaPo is terrified of science contradictory of their master’s bidding. So they (and they alone to date) write an hysterical denial of the facts reported by these scientists.

    It is a sorry State whose paid mouthpiece manufactures denials on the order of holocaust denial – but here it is from our Capitol’s mainstream newspaper. Lost are the honest, glory days of WaPo’s “All the President’s Men.”

    Who to believe? WaPo, the ivory tower carnival barker, or the dozens of scientists who agree solar inactivity will result in conditions producing another Maunder minimum?

  • Warthog

    Well, the “Warmists” have denied it for years. Another factor is the “biosphere”. Life plays such a huge role in the carbon cycle, yet the models are all totally based on physics. Freeman Dyson did some very early investigation of the “global warming” notion, and was appalled to find that the models being used totally discounted biospheric factors.

  • GreenWin

    fp, not so much an argument against AGW, as the knee jerk reaction of WaPo to a peer-reviewed paper on solar cooling. A rather sloppy, emotional reaction at that.

    No one wants to buy into corporate agendas including that of Amazon Inc. – financier of the Washington Post’s owner.

  • bachcole

    “I on the other hand dislike our Carbon emissions, overpopulation, and tendency to render so many species extinct every year.”

    I suppose 1.5 out of 3 isn’t so bad. You forgot to mention pollution and you could have had 2.5 out of 4.

    Overpopulation is already being solved; the population will plateau off at about 10 billion.

    CO2 is vital for plant growth and human breathing. It is the internal build up of CO2 that triggers the breath. Greenhouse professionals try to keep their greenhouses at about 1000 to 1200 ppm. CO2 has been much higher in the past and we had a great climate thanks to it.

    Real pollution is far more deadly than the fake pollution of CO2.

    • friendlyprogrammer

      Enjoy your Algaeburgers in 25 years. That’ll be the theme of every BBQ.

  • friendlyprogrammer

    It was with fear and trepidation I clicked that link, as your link in the comment before took me to some spam website.

    The link you just gave sent me to a website that has the history of how countries have developed since 1800. I see nothing even remotely related to population. I even looked at their video page and couldn’t see anything about 10 billion people.


    You had said,” Overpopulation is already being solved; the population will plateau off at about 10 billion. ” (in your earlier comment).

    This figure is the one you are working with and gave to me.

    One thing most projection analyses forget is advances in human longevity. In the year 1900 Life Expectancy was a mere 50 years of age on average. Today you can expect to live decades longer.

    I tell my kids to use sunscreen so they’ll have good skin when they are 150 years old.

    So if in this information era; where mankind is learning to turn Nickel into fire, is it so improbable that we might stumble upon a way to double our life expectancy?

    If we could learn to double our life expectancy that would be great!!!!

    Or would it???

    Say goodbye to your dog “Sparky”. For the world to support such masses most of us will need to be forced vegetarian, living in a world where “SparkY” and other pets might find themselves in a stew no matter what country they live in.

    So add life expectancy to your equations.

    You also just said, “There won’t be more than 10 billion people, and with LENR the Earth can easily support 10 billion people.”

    This statement is ridiculous, because if mankind is currently causing the extinction of 10 000 species per year, setting their evolution back hundreds of millions of years, then the idea of adding another 50% of us seems craaaazy.

    • bachcole

      Are you blaming me because of your inability to use the chart and your inability to understand the implications?

      Select “children per woman” for both the x- and y- axis. Click “Play”. Notice how over the decades suddenly about 50 years ago, the number of children per women plummets toward two and even less for some countries. The implication is that a rising population will level off soon. Demographers say that it will be about 10 billion and may even drop back down to 9 billion.

      Stop clinging to your hysteria and have a little faith in life. Life becomes much better for you and everyone else if you do.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        My Monicker might give it away, but I’m a computer programmer and have designed PHP based websites. So I am not exactly computer illiterate.

        You gave me 2 links in previous comments, neither of which contained a graph. If there was I still would not likely use one, because your arguing for a position, and not playing scrabble.

        In my previous comment I have stated that our planet cannot sustain 7 billion people without harming our habitat. It is just silly to contravene that point by saying it is safe to go to 9 billion.

        Neither have you addressed the very real concern that life expectancy could increase dramatically.

        If scientists discovered how we could live for 150 years tomorrow the secret would be forcibly suppressed to avoid overpopulation issues.

        Although maybe the answer is Chromium Picolinate. It extended the life of rats and I’ve been taking it for years because of that.

        You advocate for LENR which is a breakaway science, and yet you deny the possibility that some grandmother in Albuquerque might invent a longevity potion that enhances our lifespan.

        Again… You are plucking your own strings. You are the one who brought up the 10 billion people figure. I did not. Continuing to argue with this figure is odd since my position has been that we are already harming the planet.

        I am aware that mass population has had roots in religions where priests come by every week asking for new baby constituents. I am aware that technology such as television and internet are slowing down the need for large families. I am aware that birth control has been around for only a few hundred years, but it has already stopped many births.

        You suggest hysteria. Hysteria is what people might feel when they are forced to cook the family cat for their children to experience meat.

        I am merely a futurist who has no grand illusions of fairy dust coming to save those countries in mass starvation. I advocate for more plant life not only to combat GW, but also because massive fields of kelp could be harvested as food in emergencies. I think farming the oceans is a natural step.

        If our lifespan stays at 71’ish years then our planet might sustain 9 billion as you say. If you want to gamble on mass deaths as an outcome. Would it not be simpler and more prudent to ask or even reward families with less or no children.

        In my city women are rewarded for having umpteen babies by having extra welfare added to the point where it is a viable job for them. Making babies.

        People do not always have children on purpose. Birth Control has proven that given the choice, women will have smaller families.

        No. The world could curb future mass deaths by at least aiming towards population control.

        There is no profit in population control. Diapers, Strollers, clothing, it all revolves around population. More consumers equals more profits.

        You have a corporate agenda. Congratulations.

        A reduced population would have more resources to go around, and more to share. Letting people grow into a festering rat pit just because we still have some room left is not intelligent thinking, or even much of a plan.

        I suggest. Trying to curb population by rewarding and “punishing” smaller and larger families. Providing Birth Control to all developing nations ( $22/year/woman).

        You suggest doing nothing and just keep rewarding larger families simply because if Tokyo can fit 16 000 people per square mile, then so should Kansas City. What is your agenda that makes you want larger families?

        With population growth grows more need for genetic engineered food, and at much higher prices to the point meats will grow extinct. This is what is in the cards if we don’t wake up. Who is measuring though? Corporations… Yeah.. Let’s wait for them.