<p>These claims originate with a <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266799418_Prediction_of_Solar_Activity_from_Solar_Background_Magnetic_Field_Variations_in_Cycles_21-23" rel="noreferrer">paper</a> by a mathematician named Valentina Zharkova and others, who studied a correlation between solar magnetic fields and sunspots.  Based on the last three solar cycles, her model predicted that the next several solar cycles will be less intense than typical (i.e. fewer sunspots), which implies lower radiant output.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-hoopla-giant-failure-science-communication/" rel="noreferrer">Here</a> is an article addressing the claims and explaining why it's not something to worry about.  Some key points include:</p>

<p>The paper only addresses solar activity, and does not mention the impact that lower solar radiation would have on earth.  Climate scientists have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/14/global-warming-solar-minimum-barely-dent" rel="noreferrer">looked</a> at the impact that a Maunder Minimum would have, and found that the cooling effect of reduced solar output is less than the warming effect of increased greenhouse gases, so the net effect is that the earth will continue to warm even if the predictions turn out to be correct.</p>

<p>The cooling associated with the Maunder Minimum was not entirely due to the lower sunspot numbers.  There is <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120130131509.htm" rel="noreferrer">evidence</a> that massive volcanic eruptions played a significant role in the cooling. </p>

<p>Claims that the earth is already cooling because there may be fewer sunspots 5 or 15 years from now simply make no sense, and  <a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/" rel="noreferrer">global temperature measurements</a>  clearly show that there is not a cooling trend.  </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-08T17:47:40.160Z
2 questions come to me after your answer. 1 - Does NASA "evidence" it's just NASA posting something that's trendy for self publicity or something or how is it explained that NASA mentioned evidence about it . And 2 - If CO2 warms Earth then how it is possible that  Volcanos emitting CO2 instead of warming it , they are the ones responsable for cooling it?
Pablo
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-08T18:10:30.563Z
Good answer. @Pablo Look at this figure to have an idea of how big is the effect of solar variability compared with other factors affecting the climate http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig8-18.jpg
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-08T19:58:59.820Z
@Pablo - Volcanic CO2 isn't a significant contributor to global warming. Human emissions are something like 60 to 90 times greater than all volcanoes combined.  But they do throw a lot of fine dust into the upper atmosphere where it reflects some sunlight away. This causes a temporary cooling effect until the dust settles, which can take a few months to a few years after the eruption.  It appears that there were ongoing eruptions over many years or decades around the time of the Maunder Minimum.
Mark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-08T19:59:50.663Z
Here's some more information on volcanos and climate change: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities
Mark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-08T20:21:58.453Z
It's difficult to guess what NASA evidence they're referring to.  It could be a simple quote taken out of context.  As far as the upcoming solar cycle 25, NASA/NOAA is forecasting a cycle very similar to the just ending cycle 24, i.e. less active than average, but not like a Maunder Minimum.  https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/solar-cycle-25-preliminary-forecast
Mark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-08T20:36:53.567Z
In that video it's the Daily Express mentioning an ice age, not NASA. That paper is notorious for misquoting people to fit their narrative. I'm sure the NASA guy is just referring to the idea that the next few cycles are probably going to be weaker than the previous few. Nothing particularly controversial there.
Deditos
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-08T20:38:35.327Z
Apparently these claims were made by someone named Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center to Space Weather. “We see a cooling trend,” “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. " "“If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.” https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/742875/weather-forecast-nasa-cold-temperatures-earth-winter-ice-age-space-sun-news
Pablo
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-08T21:18:45.923Z
@Pablo - That quote relates to the effect that solar activity has on the thermosphere, and has nothing to do with global warming.  Here's the full context: https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/
Mark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-30T03:37:22.563Z
@Pablo - the thermosphere is up above 95 to120 km and hits 2500C during the day - but the air is so thin there's not much heat there. Cooling there is not related to and won't change global warming. That some people have chosen to misinterpret it to mean sustained global cooling is occurring in the troposphere (where climate and weather happen) and not specifically in the thermosphere (with no effect on climate) is all about being able to combine "NASA says" with "cooling" - because that appears to say what those people want to hear, ie that global warming is not happening. Which is wrong.
Ken Fabian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-04T02:41:03.407Z
Clarifying above comment - the thermosphere STARTS at 95-120km and extends up to about 700km.
Ken Fabian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-08T17:41:45.167Z
2019-04-08T17:41:45.167Z
Mark
<p>According to this article, a mini ice age could hit Earth by 2030</p>

<p><a href="http://www.scienceinsanity.com/2019/01/a-mini-ice-age-could-hit-earth-by-2030.html?fbclid=IwAR3MWKu2AuU_1DGOLUIRLEZSa9zJ5I8GO94WY5RLo2t090C8cZkNuLE8Big" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mini Ice Age could hit Earth by 2030</a></p>

<p>and according to this video </p>

<blockquote>
  <blockquote>
    <p>NASA admits mini ice age coming faster than anticipated. </p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>All continents are now showing signs of cooling</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>Mini Ice Age by 2021 not 2024, Every Continent Will be Affected</p>
  </blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H7uSCA_ZSE&amp;fbclid=IwAR0491N0EAgl7awwp5k6xk1iV81A-ir0BKV_TnBOOTOyl-IGsNjj3CsAbSc" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mini ice age by 2021 not 2024</a></p>

<p>Are we going to enter a mini ice age in the next decade, and if so, when?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-25T17:47:31.837Z
the earth is currently in an ice age right now, and will continue to be so as long as Greenland and Antarctica are covered in ice fields.
John
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-21T18:28:16.877Z
Well, I can't go to the link because my employer has blocked it as "dubious". Not a good sign ;-)
Semidiurnal Simon
<climate-change><ice-age>
Are we going to enter a mini ice age by 2030?
Pablo
# Are we going to enter a mini ice age by 2030?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-04-08)

According to this article, a mini ice age could hit Earth by 2030

[Mini Ice Age could hit Earth by 2030](http://www.scienceinsanity.com/2019/01/a-mini-ice-age-could-hit-earth-by-2030.html?fbclid=IwAR3MWKu2AuU_1DGOLUIRLEZSa9zJ5I8GO94WY5RLo2t090C8cZkNuLE8Big)

and according to this video

> > NASA admits mini ice age coming faster than anticipated.
>
> All continents are now showing signs of cooling
>
> > Mini Ice Age by 2021 not 2024, Every Continent Will be Affected

[Mini ice age by 2021 not 2024](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H7uSCA_ZSE&fbclid=IwAR0491N0EAgl7awwp5k6xk1iV81A-ir0BKV_TnBOOTOyl-IGsNjj3CsAbSc)

Are we going to enter a mini ice age in the next decade, and if so, when?

**Tags:** climate-change, ice-age

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Well, I can't go to the link because my employer has blocked it as "dubious". Not a good sign ;-)  
> **username_1**: the earth is currently in an ice age right now, and will continue to be so as long as Greenland and Antarctica are covered in ice fields.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2019-04-08. Score: 10 | Accepted answer

These claims originate with a [paper](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266799418_Prediction_of_Solar_Activity_from_Solar_Background_Magnetic_Field_Variations_in_Cycles_21-23) by a mathematician named Valentina Zharkova and others, who studied a correlation between solar magnetic fields and sunspots. Based on the last three solar cycles, her model predicted that the next several solar cycles will be less intense than typical (i.e. fewer sunspots), which implies lower radiant output.

[Here](https://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-hoopla-giant-failure-science-communication/) is an article addressing the claims and explaining why it's not something to worry about. Some key points include:

The paper only addresses solar activity, and does not mention the impact that lower solar radiation would have on earth. Climate scientists have [looked](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/14/global-warming-solar-minimum-barely-dent) at the impact that a Maunder Minimum would have, and found that the cooling effect of reduced solar output is less than the warming effect of increased greenhouse gases, so the net effect is that the earth will continue to warm even if the predictions turn out to be correct.

The cooling associated with the Maunder Minimum was not entirely due to the lower sunspot numbers. There is [evidence](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120130131509.htm) that massive volcanic eruptions played a significant role in the cooling.

Claims that the earth is already cooling because there may be fewer sunspots 5 or 15 years from now simply make no sense, and [global temperature measurements](https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/) clearly show that there is not a cooling trend.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: 2 questions come to me after your answer. 1 - Does NASA "evidence" it's just NASA posting something that's trendy for self publicity or something or how is it explained that NASA mentioned evidence about it . And 2 - If CO2 warms Earth then how it is possible that  Volcanos emitting CO2 instead of warming it , they are the ones responsable for cooling it?  
> **username_4**: Good answer. @username_0 Look at this figure to have an idea of how big is the effect of solar variability compared with other factors affecting the climate http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig8-18.jpg  
> **username_3**: @username_0 - Volcanic CO2 isn't a significant contributor to global warming. Human emissions are something like 60 to 90 times greater than all volcanoes combined.  But they do throw a lot of fine dust into the upper atmosphere where it reflects some sunlight away. This causes a temporary cooling effect until the dust settles, which can take a few months to a few years after the eruption.  It appears that there were ongoing eruptions over many years or decades around the time of the Maunder Minimum.  
> **username_3**: Here's some more information on volcanos and climate change: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities  
> **username_3**: It's difficult to guess what NASA evidence they're referring to.  It could be a simple quote taken out of context.  As far as the upcoming solar cycle 25, NASA/NOAA is forecasting a cycle very similar to the just ending cycle 24, i.e. less active than average, but not like a Maunder Minimum.  https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/solar-cycle-25-preliminary-forecast  
> **username_5**: In that video it's the Daily Express mentioning an ice age, not NASA. That paper is notorious for misquoting people to fit their narrative. I'm sure the NASA guy is just referring to the idea that the next few cycles are probably going to be weaker than the previous few. Nothing particularly controversial there.  
> **username_0**: Apparently these claims were made by someone named Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center to Space Weather. “We see a cooling trend,” “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. " "“If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.” https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/742875/weather-forecast-nasa-cold-temperatures-earth-winter-ice-age-space-sun-news  
> **username_3**: @username_0 - That quote relates to the effect that solar activity has on the thermosphere, and has nothing to do with global warming.  Here's the full context: https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/  
> **username_6**: @username_0 - the thermosphere is up above 95 to120 km and hits 2500C during the day - but the air is so thin there's not much heat there. Cooling there is not related to and won't change global warming. That some people have chosen to misinterpret it to mean sustained global cooling is occurring in the troposphere (where climate and weather happen) and not specifically in the thermosphere (with no effect on climate) is all about being able to combine "NASA says" with "cooling" - because that appears to say what those people want to hear, ie that global warming is not happening. Which is wrong.  
> **username_6**: Clarifying above comment - the thermosphere STARTS at 95-120km and extends up to about 700km.  

---

