A “Little Ice Age” Is Where We Are Heading, According To Multiple Scientists

Our sun is going through a drastic cooling period, and multiple scientists are predicting that we are heading into a "mini ice age." Human activity (deforestation etc) has destroyed our natural systems that regulate various atmospheric gasses. Why is there no focus on rebuilding these systems as there is on our CO2 output? Why do we have so many solutions yet no implementation? A common theme in our world is misinformation, and if you follow the brilliant work of independent scientists and journalists, you will see it’s currently plaguing the field of mainstream science in multiple areas. This is not just due to error on part of researchers, but the politicization of science, something scientists, especially with regards to medical and climate science, are gathering together and speaking up about every single year. Credible, dissenting scientific voices go largely unheard by the mainstream media and education. As a result, most of our beliefs and thoughts about what is happening on our planet come from programming, brainwashing and mass marketing heavy with mainstream politicized science. Overall human consciousness has been influenced by the global elite, simply for the purposes of driving us into acceptance of the limited, and often ridiculous, solutions they pose for the problems that they create. This is why critical thinking and independent research is crucial for citizens. Seeking out multiple sources for information is important while living in the age of information. Thankfully, there are a lot of people waking up right now, and as a result, many things are shifting and new sources are emerging. When I say we may be at the start of the next Ice Age, I am not really talking about a massive armageddon scenario, it’s important to be clear on that. Instead, all of the research that’s being put out now, that’s not connected to human-induced climate change, is showing that we are entering a period in Earth’s cycle where we will likely be experiencing a cooling effect, not a warming one. Scientists are calling this a “little ice age.” The latest information on this topic seems to become from a scientist named Martin Mlynczak, from NASA’s Langley Research Centre. According to his research, and the research of what seems to be a number of scientists some of whom are mentioned later in the article, the Sun’s ultraviolet output has severely dropped, and our atmosphere is responding to it.

There are multiple parts that constitute our atmosphere, and the thermosphere is one of them. It’s the part of our atmosphere that seems to react to solar activity the most. This was the topic of a viral article that’s made its way across the internet claiming that this is indicative of a mini ice age.

There are so many factors influencing the global climate, it goes far beyond human-induced change, but also into the activity of our Sun, and space weather overall.

There are a number of factors, and there is still a lot to learn about our climate, climatic cycles, and why it operates the way it does. Based on information from NASA’s TIMED satellite, our thermosphere is experiencing a cooling effect which always happens when there is a Solar Minimum, something we are currently experiencing. To help keep track of what’s happening in the thermosphere, Mlynczak and colleagues recently introduced the “Thermosphere Climate Index” (TCI)–a number expressed in Watts that tells how much heat NO molecules are dumping into space. During Solar Maximum, TCI is high (“Hot”); during Solar Minimum, it is low (“Cold”). Right now it’s cold. In fact, the Thermosphere Climate Index is close to setting a new space age record for cold. Mlynczak said that”We’re not quite there yet...but it could happen in a matter of months.” Below is a historical record of the Thermosphere Climate Index. Mlynczak and colleagues recently published a paper on the TCI showing that the state of the thermosphere can be discussed using a set of five plain language terms: Cold, Cool, Neutral, Warm, and Hot. The thermosphere is just one layer of the Earth’s atmosphere, as all of them play important roles with regards to regulating our climatic systems. It sits directly above the mesosphere, and below the exosphere, and extends from approximately 90 km to between 500km and 1,000km above the Earth. Much of the X-ray and UV radiation from the Sun is absorbed in the thermosphere. When the Sun is very active and emitting more high energy radiation, the thermosphere gets hotter and expands or “puffs up”. In the thermosphere, temperatures climb quite fast in the lower part of it, then they even out, level off and increase with altitude. It’s a great way to measure the effect of Solar activity, as Solar activity strongly influences temperature in the thermosphere. Changes in the thermosphere, like the cooling effect, have also been contributed to an increase in our Carbon Dioxide output, which ironically has a cooling effect on our thermosphere. What happens in the lower atmosphere can also change what happens in the thermosphere, and vice versa, but there is still a lot to be discovered, and more research is needed.

The thermosphere has been cooling for a long time, but again, mainstream publications constantly blame this on the increase in C02 levels without ever mentioning that it’s directly correlated with solar activity. Scafetta & West (2006) estimated that 25-35% of global warming in the 1980-2000 period was attributable to solar variability. Other scientists disagree, finding no evidence of global warming due to solar activity. Well, the thermosphere, as mentioned above, is a great way to measure solar activity and how it can and does affect our climate. But the focus here is the Sun, as a number of researchers have pointed towards a ‘cooling effect.’ Just because the thermosphere is responding to the Sun’s cooling down phase, does not mean we are going to see the same result in the lower atmosphere. So to imply that a mass cooling effect within the thermosphere will trigger an ice age not correct. That being said, solar activity does indeed have many researchers positing a mini ice age, For example, Nils-Axel Mörner from the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Institute states, By about 2030-2040, the Sun will experience a new grand solar minimum. This is evident from multiple studies of quite different characteristics: the phasing of sunspot cycles, the cyclic observations of North Atlantic behaviour over the past millennium, the cyclic pattern of cosmogenic ra-dionuclides in natural terrestrial archives, the motions of the Sun with respect to the centre of mass, the planetary spin-orbit coupling, the planetary conjunction history and the general planetary solar terrestrial interaction. During the previous grand solar minima—i.e. the Spörer Minimum (ca 1440-1460), the Maunder Minimum (ca 1687-1703) and the Dalton Minimum (ca 1809-1821)—the climatic conditions deteriorated into Little Ice Age periods.

The idea that solar activity is not affecting Earth’s climate is extremely fishy and doesn’t make much sense when you go through the literature, but it seems to be brushed off within mainstream academia, and hardly studied. It definitely made me scratch my head when IFL Science, for example, put out a statement saying “The Sun simply does not have that large an effect on our climate compared to human activity.” This is a very ridiculous and irresponsible statement. It’s also important that readers recognize there isn’t even any course to back up such a false claim. Don’t believe what is written, research what is written. What’s worse is the ridicule factor, the way mainstream publications attack any narrative that presents an explanation for climate change that is not human induced. Something is very wrong with this picture, regardless of your stance on the ‘global warming’ phenomenon.

There is more on this later in the article.

The paper by Morner goes on to make some very important points: So as you can see, the comment from IFL science quoted above, again, is simply not true. I’ve provided one of many soures available here, and I encourage other writers to do the same.

The author goes on to conclude: Durinng the last three grand solar minima...global climate experienced Little Ice Age conditions. Arctic water penetrated to the south all the way down to Mid-Portugal, and Europe experienced severe climatic conditions...The Arctic ice over exapanded significantly...By 2030-2040, we will be in a New Grand Solar Minimum, which by analogy to past minima must be assumed to lead to significant climatic deterioration with ice expansion in the Artctic..We now seem to be in possession of quite convergent data...This precludes a continual warming as claimed by the IPCC project, instead of this, we are likely to face a new Little Ice Age. According to the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS, A new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat.

The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645. (source) A few years ago, the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales was held, where Valentina Zharkova, a mathematics professor from Northumbria University (UK), presented a model that can predict what solar cycles will look like far more accurately than was previously possible. She states that the model can predict their influence with an accuracy of 97 percent, and says it is showing that Earth is heading for a “mini ice age” in approximately fifteen years. Zharkova and her team came up with the model using a method called “principal component analysis” of the magnetic field observations, from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California. Looking forward to the next few solar cycles, her model predicts that from 2030 to 2040 there will be cause for a significant reduction in solar activity, which again, will lead to a mini ice age. According to Zharkova. You can read more about that here. Again, these are just a few examples of multiple scientists pointing to these facts.

The “97 percent” tagline is often used to demonize those who question human-induced climate change, and the mainstream media will do their best to make those who question it, no matter their background, credentials, or credibility, look foolish. This is a common tactic used by the elite.

They ridicule opposing views that threaten their control and profit. Ivar Giaever, a Norwegian-American physicist who shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973, compares current climate science to pseudoscience. Based on my research, the top scientists within this field are not all in agreeance, in fact, the majority of them may all agree with the narrative of this article. But you will not see them on CNN. What is going on here? The “climate hysteria” that most scientists in the field label what we see today as is a result of mass media, brainwashing, and the politicization of climate science. Take Dr. Richard Lindzen, for example, he is one of the hundreds who refer to this type of narrative (hysteria) and claims that climate scientists raising this issue have been extremely demonized. Lindzen is actually one of the world’s top experts in the field and lead author of “Physical Climate Process and Feedbacks,” Chapter7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment report on climate change. He and many others have been quite outspoken regarding the political influence that weighs heavy on all IPCC publications.

The final reports and conclusions are drawn, as expressed by Lindzen in multiple lectures, are actually written by the politicians. Another important point to realize is that environmental degradation is never really addressed, the focus constantly seems to be on our carbon output. Historically, we’ve seen periods in Earth’s history, prior to the industrial revolution, where CO2 levels were just as high as they are now. But, what we haven’t seen before is the complete destruction and disruption of our national systems that mitigate CO2, control it, and regulate it. We’ve completely polluted our planet, and perhaps the focus shouldn’t be on CO2 output, which is already at the moment highly questioned with its connection to climate change, but our destruction of the systems in place to regulate our climate. As well as pollution and degradation. Why should the people have to pay for the actions of a system unwilling to change? That being said, those of us who question the mainstream narrative on this topic seems to be the most passionate about clean energy technology, and ‘saving’ our planet.

The notion of static,unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope.

The fact that ‘the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound futuregenerations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of reptition for truth, and the expliotation of these weaknesses by politcians, environmental promotors, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others asl well...Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have the medieval warm period and the little ice age. Durin the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century, these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either. –Lindzen Human beings no doubt have had an impact on the climate, for sure, but other factors have been ignored and the human impact has been ramped up for ulterior motives, it’s hysteria and fear that’s being created in order to justify measures that benefit the global elite, the ones who take advantage of us and enslave us, while we live in the illusion that we’re actually free. It’s like a bird being born in a cage.

The point is, if we want to learn anything real about this subject, we must turn our eye away from the mainstream, and our ears towards the actual scientists within the field and what they are actually saying. We must actually look into things, we must read and educate ourselves instead of relying on authoritative figures to disseminate information. Below is a great debate with a few scientists on both sides of the coin, one that approaches the issue from both sides. All will acknowedge that the field is still split on this issue. That’s not really the narrative we see from the mainstream. Global warming is about politics and power rather than science. In science, there is an attempt to clarify; in global warming, language is misused in order to confuse and mislead the public.

The misuse of language extends to the misuse of models. For advocated of policies allegedly addressing global warming, the role of models is not to predict but rather to justify the claim that catastrophe is possible. As they understand, proving something to be impossible is itself almost impossible.

The quote above comes from Lindzen, who in the video below educated people on what the scientists are actually saying, compared to what the media tells us they are saying. This is a big topic that branches off into so many discussions, like the fact as to why climate engineering is never mentioned? Weather modification and the drastic manipulation of our atmosphere has been proposed as a potential solution to this supposed problem.

The process involves seeding the atmosphere with sun reflective particles.

There is a lot of evidence suggesting that atmospheric weather manipulation has been occurring for a long time, who knows why. What we’re told is that it’s for the purposes of climate change mitigation, but again, when has our government ever exposed the truth on subjects that are classified simply because a powerful group of people deem it a ‘national security’ issue? Recognize that, first, that I am in no way a climate change denier. Clearly, our climate is constantly changing. I am also, as most people who question the mainstream global warming narrative, completely for the transition into cleaner energy technology. It seems our ‘leaders’ are as well, but they’re only interested after sitting on top of decades of transformative technology. Only within the past few years have elitist groups been divesting into clean energy, simply because they want to control the entire energy industry as they do now with oil, therefore they must oversee its transition. New clean and free energy threatens our entire economy, therefore to them, the transition must be made in a way that does not collapse it. Bottom line, fossil fuels are no longer needed, there are “breakthroughs available..that never see the light of day” (Dr. Brian O’Leary) that could completely revolutionize our plant.

The same group of people who seem to be pushing climate hysteria are also behind the suppression of clean energy technology, which doesn’t make much sense at all. At least this is what I believe based on my research. Anytime the mainstream makes you feel stupid for questioning something or demonizes and uses ridicule to shut down the opposing points, you know something us up. We see the same thing happening with vaccines today.

The good news is, people are waking up every single day, and what seems so obvious cannot stay in the shadows for too long.

The truth eventually presents itself. To stand idle and not create awareness on how the preservation of our Earth is being used by the global elite is not an option. Letting so-called “leaders” of our world meet every single year to talk has resulted in zero action in solutions that could have been implemented decades ago. All that happens is taxpayers are squeezed. What’s worse is that those meeting to discuss it know that. Think for yourself.

.

Read the full article at the original website