New Crock Video: The Myth of the Mini Ice-Age

January 4, 2012

One of the perennial golden oldies of science denial is the “impending ice age” myth.

As usual, the climate denial noise machine distorts what an actual scientist, Dr. Frank Hill, says about his research — That there is no prediction of any ice age. – mini, maxi, little, big or or otherwise.

Check below for the video description and relevant links -

One of the perennial golden oldies of science denial is the “impending ice age” myth.

As usual, the climate denial noise machine distorts of what an actual scientist says about his research — That there is no prediction of any ice age. – mini, maxi, little, big or or otherwise.

Dan Lubin -
Greenhouse gases, and solar variability
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl5x_G_kUZk

Frank Hill Interview – Earthsky
http://earthsky.org/space/frank-hill-sees-future-sunspot-drop-no-new-ice-age

Frank Hill interview – Reuters
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN154793920110615?sp=true

National Solar Observatory press release
http://www.nso.edu/press/SolarActivityDrop.html

NASA GISS temperature review 2008/discussion of solar minimum effects
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

Competitive Enterprise Institute funding
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute

Fox News report on “Mini Ice Age”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyRKK4iMrEw

Dan Lubin at American Geophysical Union, full interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiHs0-SkfdM

About these ads

9 Responses to “New Crock Video: The Myth of the Mini Ice-Age”

  1. daveburton Says:

    The Frank Hill material is interesting. However, it is not clear at all whether the predicted solar nap, if it occurs, will have a larger or smaller effect on temperatures than anthropogenic GHGs. If we’re very fortunate the two factors might roughly cancel, leading to a protracted plateau at temperatures near the current level.

    In the 1970s, we were warned frequently and vehemently that science told us that unless air pollution was quickly curbed we were likely to enter a new ice age, with catastrophic consequences for humanity.

    Prior to the ice age and acid rain scares, the standard remedy for protecting people from ground level air pollution caused by coal-fired electrical power plants was simply to build very tall smokestacks. It worked, but had side-effects, such as aerosols which cause cooling. Now we have scrubbers removing the pollutants at the stacks, and the climate is a bit warmer. But determining the extent to which that correlation was the result of causation is problematic.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      Do you think its “interesting” that Fox and CEI chose to blatantly lie and misrepresent the research?
      Moreover, Hill says nothing about the solar cycle causing any cooling whatever, and certainly nothing about “cancelling out warming”. Meanwhile, NASA, who have already run the numbers, make it clear that that is not going to happen, and Dr Lubin backs them up.
      This line of reasoning speaks volumes about he “ruby slipper” school of science denial. If you say it often enough, maybe it will come true.

      The 70s ice age meme is so 1995. —

      One eensy weensy side effect of ‘dilution as the solution to coal pollution” has been the mercury contamination of water supplies, soils, and the food chain world wide.
      But then, more brain damage just means higher ratings for Fox news, so I goess you’d call that a win.

    • neilrieck Says:

      There will be no ice age any time soon, if ever? Why? Solar output has been slowly decreasing for the past three solar cycles (since 1975).

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiance

      On top of this, pollution and particulate matter have reduced the amount of solar energy getting through to the Earth’s surface.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_dimming

      So you would expect this double reduction to contribute to a drop in average global temperature, but temperature is rising.

      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

      This is due to the fact that green-house gases trap heat. For example, CO2 is one G-h gas which has risen 24% during my life time (392/315)

      http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

      Higher average temperatures are causing permafrost to thaw which then release methane (a G-H gas that can trap heat more efficiently than CO2). This positive feedback loop is known as thermal-runaway.


  2. Well, if any of the GOP science-denying candidates wins the presidency he might put the country’s science brain on ice for four years. “Science! We don’t need no steenking science!”

  3. Martin_Lack Says:

    In Storms of my Grandchildren, James Hansen nailed this one by pointing out that there will never be another Ice Age unless Homo sapiens go extinct. The reason being that artificial climate forcing (warming) is 10 times stronger than natural forcing (cooling).


  4. [...] “think” tank flack and Fox News misinformer, Chris Horner, from this week’s video.  Mr. Horner, working with the far right wing “American Traditions Institute”, is now [...]

  5. sailrick Says:

    “In the 1970s, we were warned frequently and vehemently that science told us that unless air pollution was quickly curbed we were likely to enter a new ice age”

    I think even you know that is a bogus argument.

    Global cooling was a minor hypothesis, not a theory. There were a total of 7 research papers investigating the potential for cooling aerosols, such as sulfer oxides. These are released when fossil fuels are burned.
    None of the authors of the cooling papers held that view for long.

    During the the same time frame, there were 44 papers projecting global warming from greenhouse gases, mainly CO2 emitted by humans burning fossil fuels.

    So there were 6 times as many research papers projecting AGW as those talking about global cooling.

    For contrast, the IPCC’s 4th Assessment report is the result of over 10,000 research papers reviewed by 2,500 climate scientists, and there are thousands more pubished papers by now.

    AGW is a theory, not a hypothesis.
    That means it has a mountain of evidence and a mountain of peer reviewed literature; and that having gone through all that and not being disproven, it is now a theory, like gravity is a theory.

    What happened was Newsweek ran a story and that is what people remember.


  6. [...] links to statements made and sources referenced in the video are on Climate Denial Crock of the Week. // ShareHello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for [...]


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,631 other followers

%d bloggers like this: