Not sure if there's been additional research or conjecture since then.
which makes for a very convenient distraction/talking point of climate-focused science deniers. I am no expert, but every time I have checked into one of those supposed impending Grand Solar Minimum predictions (that will cause some sort of climate crisis), it has been pure pseudo-science with no legitimate or rational theoretical basis.
Also, you are conflating a mild temperature drop that would be expected to be caused by solar minimum with an ice age and a "pole shift".
It's a well established theory
And (while not clear in this case) usually when someone claims that a "pole shift" will happen, they are usually referring to the crackpot claim that the planet will suddenly do something like maybe flip over or wobble violently causing the end of civilization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataclysmic_pole_shift_hypothe...
You might want to read up on terminology.
Physics, thermodynamics, informs us that the glaciers aren't coming back while the insulation in the atmosphere is high and still increasing.
That's pedantic.
> Physics, thermodynamics, informs us that the glaciers aren't coming back while the insulation in the atmosphere is high and still increasing.
Meh. The running hypothesis on the "other side" is that we're going to have a pole shift and grand solar minimum at the same time. Now, as you can see, I haven't really done the prerequisite reading. I have, however, read about all the stupidity surrounding "global warming" and how it was totally going to end the planet in 2000 and 1980 and 2024 and whenever, every year's the last one so that people that don't have anyone's best interests at heart can get more leverage off this supposedly inevitable-and-totally-close scenario. Meanwhile, the "fringe" has decidedly stuck to one thing, and has repeatedly criticized the very real corruption of (climate) science by monetary interests (and now national / global policy decisions) and popular opinion. This only makes me NOT want to spend my free time untangling "conclusive" climate decisions backed by ""science"" and who-knows-what leverage by a slimy bureaucrat.
I, as an individual, don't have a horse in this race. I don't believe in either one because my carbon emissions can be eclipsed by a volcano or a plane in a few hours. It's completely useless to expect me to not buy a car or to watch my energy consumption when it's not going to make a dent anyway.
The "other side" in this instance is fossil fuel funded think tanks promoting bonkers denialism ala the same institutes and their pro tobacco work in the decades earlier.
What "pole shift"? Magnetic pole on earth or the sun? The Earth magnetic pole flipping this century or the next is improbable at best and the solar pole flip happens every 22 years or so, neither that nor a grand solar minimum has anything to do with the glaciers on earth.
> I haven't really done the prerequisite reading
You might like to start with Syukuro Manabe's 1967 Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity - it was 15 years old when I first read it in an applied mathematics class prior to a career in geophysical exploration for minerals and energy clients.
It's 57 years old but still an absolute stonker of a paper, rightly considered the single most influential paper in climate research. (and only 19 pages).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-04...
> I have, however, read about all the stupidity surrounding "global warming" and how it was totally going to end the planet in 2000 and 1980 and 2024
Ignore that, that's not science that's media spin, half coming from people that really struggle to convey what a slow rolling train wreck climate change will be and desperate to urge people to take steps before it's too late, the other half coming from groups paid to up the FUD and hype in order to dilute the threat which has clearly woirked in many cases (you seem to be a fine example).
> This only makes me NOT want to spend my free time untangling "conclusive" climate decisions backed by ""science""
It's not much harder than understanding the heat equations.
> I, as an individual, don't have a horse in this race.
Exactly. Like many you're likely old, will be dead before this is a big issue, have no children, don't care about them if you did, and can't be arsed consuming less or making an effort. It's completely understandable.
> I don't believe in either one because my carbon emissions can be eclipsed by a volcano or a plane in a few hours.
Collectively though, it's the sum total of human emissions that are the problem, with a small percentage being the biggest problem and being reluctant to set an example.
> It's completely useless to expect me to not buy a car or to watch my energy consumption when it's not going to make a dent anyway.
Indeed, just rearrange your deck chair and listen to the band playing onwards.
Of course if you are in your 20s (as your HN profile claims) then you might want to do something that has an impact on the world about you and the people you know .. other than rolling coal and buying a lambo or whatever.
.. which means that the level of emissions we have right now is far, far beyond what’s necessary for avoiding global cooling.
This should be obvious if you look at best estimates of the rate of cooling/warming in the past. The warming we see now is happening much faster than anything seen before so it’s absolutely not a good thing in any conceivable way
Also, acidification is another problem of co2. Honestly you might rather release methane or refrigerant if your goal was only to heat/insulate the atmosphere with minimal changes to chemistry, but I'm not a chemist etc
Also never forget the great oxygenation event and the azola cooling the planet to the point of mass extinction and snowball earth
'those scientists' were from Sweden responding to protests over the increasing costs of food due to famine. When looked at from the lens of maximizing calories per dollar, it makes a lot more sense.
I'd guess that there are more people use that information to select lower calorie food than people who make their menu selections based on the maximum number of calories per dollar, although I'd bet both those groups are a tiny fraction compared to the number of people who just order whatever they're in the mood for/tastes best to them and knowing how many calories are in that meal doesn't influence their behavior/choices at that moment but may still inform their choices later on
(That said, if we make it past the next century, we're probably going to be disassembling entire planets with von Neumann replicators rather than concerning ourselves with something as small as a mere atmosphere).