Hold those Hybrids....

Wednesday, February 08, 2006
One of the curious aspects about the whole global warming hysteria is how few scientists publicly ask anything like, "Gee, I wonder what kind of solar activity we will have over the next century while we are living in eco-friendly communes and not driving any place?" Well one scientist has. A Russian astronomer predicts a mini ice age. Now I wouldn't bet the farm on that. Still, how often do we hear the supposedly unassailable scientific consensus even ask the question.

Hat tip brain-terminal.com


Knucklehead said...


Can't get at the link (probably my problem).

IIRC correctly the last mini ice age began in the later part of the Dark Ages and was winding down about the time Washington was huddling the troops at Valley Forge and crossing the frozen Delaware.

Some years back my grade school yungun had to do a report on climate and I was telling her about how when I was her age I had to walk to school uphill, through snow, both ways and how we always had snow and build snow forts and ice skated on the pond and played hockey and so on. So she decided to do a report on "average winters", contacted the US weather service and got all sorts of historical temperature data. Sure enough that sweetspot decade of my yute had been considerably colder than the decades immediately before and after.

Funny how that stuff works. I can never understand why humans just won't let Gaia be the steady-state climate machine she was meant to be.

terrye said...

I saw an interesting Discovery show on the mini ice age.

But what the hey, if there is a mini ice age it will just be another sign and symptom of global warming. Perverse I know..but that is how fear mongering works.

Barry Dauphin said...


the link worked for me, but I recopied it and tried it again and it was working. Let me know if not working. Otherwise here's the code: http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060207-041447-2345r

Yes, the interesting twist behind all the warming fury is that the proponents of global warming are often so self consciously Gaia worshipers, but simultaneously attribute all sorts of power to us mere mortals.

Barry Dauphin said...

In some ways the global warming acolytes resemble a religion more than a science. Humanity is seen as insignificant compared to Mother Nature. It is more like we are being told we have offended the gods, rather than that the force of humanity is genuinely that powerful. Surely, many of these scientists understand that the heretofore unpredicted solar activity will play a large role in determining the earth's climate. It's as if we are simultaneoulsy being told that we are puny, yet have the power to change global climate like the thermostat in my living room adjusts the furnace.

Economic development, however, gives us the best chance to have the resources, knowledge and wherewithal to adjust or adapt to whatever climate changes, if any, await us.

markg8 said...

If the polar ice cap melts or the Greenland ice sheet slides off into the North Atlantic it'll be much more than a mini ice age we're looking at.

I have no idea if this Russian scientist is right about solar activity. I didn't know we could predict solar activity a week in advance let alone 25 years. Regardless the UPI article doesn't say a word about global warming caused by use of fossil fuels. The overwhelming scientific consensus says the use of fossil fuels is the major casue of gloabal warming and may result in catastrophic climate change.

But even if you dispute that conclusion you can't dispute that fossile fuels are finite resources most of which are found outside this country. If just for economic security reasons the US should develop renewable sources of fuel to ensure our prosperity and make sure we never have to trade blood for oil. Why keep paying those icky Arabs and Chavez to fill your tank?

Barry Dauphin said...

The lack of ability to predict solar activity would therefore be a huge unknown variable but could be incredibly influenctial nonetheless. The point is about how much we don't know and questioning the certainty of these predictions based upon partial knowledge of some of the variables.

Knucklehead said...


The global warming acolytes are amusing in one sense and dangerous in another. They are amusing because they claim scientific certainty without adhering to scientific methodolgy. The present postulation as fact without acknowledging the gaping holes in the experiments and rudimentary nature of lab equipment.

It is evident that the earth has had BIG ice ages and LITTLE ice ages. These range in duration from millions of years to thousands of years to hundreds of years (i.e, there are enormous differences of magnitude in both extent and duration). For an ice age to happen requires, obviously to some of us, massive global cooling. For and ice age to end we must have massive global warming.

Scientists speculate how these come agout and why they end. There may even be hard and fast evidence. Just as clearly as the fact that they have started and ended is the fact that "humans didn't do it". There are clearly massive environmental forces at work that have nothing to do with humans.

It is very likely that humans, especially we modern variety who really like to burn stuff, may be able to "contribute" to the forces at work. What remains unclear because we do not have a full understanding of the overall massive forces is whether or not the human contribution is meaningful, in what way and degree is it meaningful, and even if it is meaningful does it ultimately matter. We don't know if the human contribution is accelerant, catalyst, or insignificant noise. And even if human activity is accelerant or catalyst is there really any way to stop climate change? (Not likely, Gaia will do what she will do.)

I sometimes wonder if the desired goal of the global warming acolytes is to try and bring about the cessation of modern economic activity. Return us all to the idlyc age of hunting, gathering, and subsistence agriculture. I realize, of course, that it is much more "benign" than that; nothing more than access to grant money.

Has anyone calculated the thermodynamic effects of the seismic event that caused the 2004 tsunami and how that might effect ocean currents over several decades? Scientists have recently learned that plants are putting methane into the enviroment. Has anybody fully quantified that and qualified the climactic impact?

The only thing we do know is that the earth is not a steady-state climate machine. Well, I guess we do know one other thing; some people seem convinced that it is a steady state climate machine.