Little Ice Age: It Was Not the Sun

vikingpower writes "The Little Ice Age, lasting from the end of the Middle Age into the 17th century, may very likely have been caused by the combined effects of four major volcanic eruptions and increased sunlight reflection by increasing sea ice, the so-called Albedo effect. ... The University of Boulder has a press release with maps and photographs. Bette Otto-Bliesner, one of the scientists behind the 'volcano + sea ice' thesis, fields an earnest warning against drawing conclusions too quickly from this research: 'I think people might look at the Little Ice Age and think that all we need to save us from rising temperatures are some volcanic eruptions or the geo-engineering equivalent [...] But when you see what happened when global temperatures dropped by just one degree and you look at current predictions of six or seven degree increases for the future, you realize how precarious things are for life as we know it.'"

Comments

We didn't really know how things worked before

[BeforeCoffee]

... and we don't really understand how they work now.

The sun's output did matter in the Little Ice Age. Sol doesn't put out constant energy, perhaps it was coincidentally at a low during that period and that contributed to cooling.

This climate system of ours is more complex and dynamic than the AGW devotees are willing to admit.

Re:We didn't really know how things worked before

[ArcherB]

It always astonishes me that on a geeky site like Slashdot with an audience that in theory puts such a high value on science, you get so many global warming denialists.

When it's hot, we are told, "See, it's Global Warming!"
Because when it's cold, we are told that weather is not climate.
When scientists does non-government funded research that supports "denialist", we are told to consider who's paying for the study (big oil, etc..)
When scientists government funds research that supports the "alarmists" and gives governments more power, we are told that scientists don't have an agenda.

No "denialists" has done anything as boneheaded as "hide the decline", so I can't compare it to anything. But try to be honest and imagine your outrage if a "denialist" had his email hacked and it showed that he was "hiding the rise" and trying to block opposing views from being published. You'd say that alone proves that all "denialists" are frauds. But since it was an alarmist, you say that it's taken out of context. Would you honestly say the same if the shoe were on the other foot.

The hypocrisy doesn't help either. The ones screaming the loudest are the ones in the biggest houses with the largest fleets of SUV and private planes. If they really bought the hype they were spewing, they'd be on a bike planting trees.

You also have to notice that the people who are screaming the loudest about global warming opposed big oil before global warming was a blip on the radar. I don't know if they believe because of the science or simply because the WANT to believe it so bad. We all want to believe that our plight in life sucks because some old, fat white guy with a cigar and longhorns on the front of his Cadillac is holding us down.

Sorry, but I smell an awful lot of bullshit and incompetence coming from the "alarmist" camp. Even if they are completely on the up and up and 100% on global warming, you have to admit the whole thing has been a disastrous comedy of errors. I wonder about the competency of some of these leading scientists that don't you don't put shit like that in email form.

Finally, it's the insults and the attempt to shut down the discussion that comes from the "alarmists". Al Gore says, "the debate is over". Others say, "We have a consensus", as if truth follows scientist majority. Then we have people like you who insult the intelligence of anyone who disagrees by saying that they know nothing about science or are just plain stupid.

So, you'll have to forgive me for being skeptical. Yes, I'm a conservative, but I'm not a climatologist, so my opinion does not really matter either way. Frankly, I am a climatological agnostic. I simply don't know. But being a conservative and not saying that I believe in AGW suddenly makes me "denialist" to people like you.

I'll probably get modded down for this comment and someone will tell me I'm wrong, even though everything I've posted is OPINION. But that's kinda how this site works. If someone disagrees with you and has mod points, they will mod you down, usually "overrated", in an attempt to silence views that differ from their own. But you didn't seem to understand how a site filled with such intelligent people could harbor those you think are so stupid, I thought I'd explain what makes us think that way. Intelligent people by their very nature are skeptics. And since absolutely nothing on this debate relies on my opinion, I can afford to remain skeptical with no ill effects.