because conditions were not right.
The only condition "more right" now is that we are a couple of hundred years later, but you don't have a prayer of getting that resolution correct wrt to the 120K year glaciation. This is why I'm asking why you are trying to be a prophet on this particular solar cycle (or the next one). There is zero evidence to support such a belief. Further, there is plenty of evidence to support the notion that AGW has boosted the current temp MORE than a Maunder type solar minimum will subtract, so we are arguably further away from sliding into a glaciation (which as I've noted takes 1000's of years anyway) even in the so far unlikely event of a Maunder type solar minimum starting right now (something which again there is really no evidence for, since the current solar cycle numbers are well within the norms expected from the data of the last dozen cycles or so.)
You might want to think just a smidgen about statistics. When somebody wets their pants about the number of solar blank days being "more than during the entire Space Age" as we saw spread around the web, and here on this board, what the heck are they actually saying? I'll translate: The Space Age is about 50 years, so with 11 year solar cycles this means either 4 or 5 minimums. So some fool is excited because this roll of the dice produced a number that just exceeded the numbers from the prior 4 or 5 rolls. Gee, how freaking odd, this is like, OMG totally unexpected and very strange! LOL! But the average fool is not smart enough to figure this out, and instead, says, Gee, the sun is the blankest in 50 years, OMG!
The metric about a total blank month in 100 years was of course even more stupid, as I've pointed out before. The metric of a long contiguous set of blank days, which would also go back about 10 cycles has more merit, but you need to cast it in the light of 1 out of 10 cycles, not 1 year out of 100 years. It is not very rare to have one randomly chosen sample fall outside of a set of 10 other randomly chosen samples. The fact that the average idiot does not understand this is a rather sad fact of American science education. |
