"This is Too Funny!!! Mini Ice Age Coming in 15 Years" Topic

It appears that the sun will be coming to the rescue in the Global Warming/Climate Change peril, I'm told we are now in the grips of. Apparently, solar activity may drop by as much as 60%, to levels not seen in about 300 years, and that it may last a decade or more (the climate models show a 97% certainty this will occur).

link

So, it appears I was correct, and that solar output has a lot more to do with our current levels of Global Warming/Climate Change than human activity does, and that as previously mentioned, climate fluctuations (AKA climate change) have been going on for millennia, even before man made his first appearance on Earth.

Time to ramp up those coal fired powerplants to help keep the ice age from being too severe?

Where's the 1960's-esque Ice Age news panic, in the media?

No doubt, Al isn't going to be happy about this.

Oh, the irony………

Yeah when carbon is only 3 parts of 22,000 how can it be the cause of anything.

Certainly feels cold enough here in the winter to be an ice age.

But how can they predict solar activity in 15 years when they can't even tell what weather it will be tomorrow !!!

Oh wait ! This one is about global COOLING …

Better start (re)building all them coal fired nucular power plants, hainna?

It looks like we owe China and India thanks for being so obstinate.
Eat more meat!
Bring back V8 muscle cars !

Hey. It's on the internet. It has to be true.

Someone spring Terrement from the can. ASAP!

Someone spring Terrement from the can. ASAP!

YES!

As has been posted here before, fluctuations in the Sun's activity have little impact on the earth's climate, when compared to other factors.

link

link

link

link

link

There's a chart on the Wikipedia link that's interesting. It shows that the Sun's irradiance has decreased over the past 40 years, nevertheless the earth has been warming.

The links also show that on average, the sun's energy fluctuates one tenth of one percent (0.1%). Yet, the author of the article cites the professor as saying that it will drop by 60% over the next 15 years. Is that even possible?

Mako, you once challenged my credentials as a climate scientist. I actually did not see your post till days after the thread had gone cold, but I will address your challenge here.

I am not a climate scientist. I am however a scientist. I understand how the scientific process works, and I know how the business of science works. I also know a little bit about statistics, which is what these arguments are really about.

But I never claimed any such thing. In fact, if you go back over all of my posts regarding this topic, you would see that my responses are almost always built around links to articles and institutions that are expert at climate change. I am referring the reader to the scientific sources.

Now, I would argue, that if you are challenging the overwhelming amount of data supporting climate change, then we must conclude that you think you know better than they do.

Hey! You found a study that predicts the sun's activity will decrease by 60% over the next two decades, thus ushering in an ice age. Now find another, and another, and another. Compile a body of evidence supporting this researcher's claim, and then it will get my attention.

In the meantime, support your argument here by verifying the credentials of the author and the author's sources. Who is this researcher?

One last thing. Since this is an article about the research this professor has done, and not the researchers actual report, it should be taken with a serious grain of salt. this is not to say that the research is faulty, rather, reporters have a bad habit of screwing up what the science says. Here's a good, though admittedly over the top example. In celebration of Shark
Week:

link

GreenLand

I'm still investing on long underwear, rather than Bermuda shorts.

The Royal Astronomical Society's article on the same: link

If solar fluctuations have "little impact" on climate, what caused the Little Ice Age?

(Hums "Put another log on the fire…")

And, it's not even carbon, it's CO2………no matter how many times they try to spin that myth. A normal by-product of respiration.

But, mandt2, there's a 97% certainty of an ice age, AND, there was an ice age about 300 years ago, or so, which clearly seems to confirm the solar power output theory to climate temp fluctuations being a natural occurrence (not to mention all those over the last billion years, or so, that we are aware of).

Perhaps you are also unaware, there was another mini ice age around the time or WWII, or perhaps a little before. My mother recounted tales of people driving vehicles across one of the sounds, in North Carolina.

Now, they rarely even get snow, or ice, since the region borders the Atlantic Ocean, which generally keeps Winters there quite mild.

And, it's not even carbon, it's CO2………no matter how many times they try to spin that myth. A normal by-product of respiration.

Wow that argument is the stupidest I've ever seen,

Mako11, which of NC's sounds would that have been ?

My mother's parents lived in Plymouth, NC, a couple miles
from the Albemarle sound and no one in the family can
recall such an event.

We could also have 'snowblitz glaciation' which could create and or increase glaciers, massive snowfall and freezing temps.

Buy a lot of miniatures with winter clothing, invest in snow resorts and space heaters.

I like this line "could also cancel out the effects"..or something like that-which means NOTHING COULD HAPPEN!!!

It was the Albemarle, and apparently they used to drive trucks and other vehicles across it, back before the bridge was built.

Perhaps it was a decade, or two earlier than I mentioned, since I don't recall the exact time period, but do recall my mother mentioning it.

And, it's not even carbon, it's CO2………no matter how many times they try to spin that myth. A normal by-product of respiration.

You may want to check out the science first before making such statements. See:

link

Whether you want to believe it or not, the link between CO2 and climate warming is pretty much settled science. Hate to say it, but you're all alone out there on your limb…

But, mandt2, there's a 97% certainty of an ice age, AND, there was an ice age about 300 years ago, or so, which clearly seems to confirm the solar power output theory to climate temp fluctuations being a natural occurrence (not to mention all those over the last billion years, or so, that we are aware of).

First off, there is little consensus on exactly what triggered the "Little Ice Age" (and little consensus on the duration. The only solid date is the end which is generally pegged at the mid 1800's. The beginning ranges from 1250 to 1650). What is known is that one (of many) contributory factors may have been deceased solar activity as a result of a Maunder Minimum Event (where solar activity is at it's minimum). However, the more significant events that have been identified are increased volcanic activity and an ocean conveyor slowdown. But again, the area is still under considerable research.

As for your 97% certainty that solar output was linked to the "Little Ice Age". Yes, there was a Maunder Minimum event that occurred between 1645 and 1715 during the mid point of the "Little Ice Age". BUT…. If you had READ the article (and the research backing the article) as presented by the National Astronomy Meeting 2015 (organised by the Royal Astronomical Society), you would have noticed that IN NO WAY does the good doctor establish a link between the previous "Little Ice Age" or an oncoming "Little Ice Age". In fact, Dr. Zharkova's research was wholly focused on developing a new model of the Sun's internal activity that (with your 97% accuracy) fits the observed data of solar activity. And, using her model, the next Maunder Minimum event is predicted to occur approximately 2030-2040. The model itself is actually pretty simple and fits well within the norms of solar research and explains the fluctuations of solar activity quite well. (And yes, Patrick, solar scientists have been able to predict solar activity with a high degree of accuracy for quite some time). The actual press release from the National Astronomy Meeting 2015 can be read here:

link

And the actual release of Dr. Zharkova's research here:

link

You'll notice that the second link makes NO mention of a "Little Ice Age".

Now about that "Little Ice Age" caused by the upcoming Maunder Minimum event….

According to the best estimates, a Maunder Minimum event would cause about 0.26°C cooling, but as soon as solar activity begins to rise again, that cooling would be offset by solar warming. Additionally, the event itself would only last a few decades. Now the estimated warming from GHG for the same period (say, up to 2100) is in the range of 4°C. So any cooling effect brought on by a Maunder Minimum event will be more than offset by the GHG warming effect. For additional reading (if you care):

link

link

BTW, the impact of this event has already been discussed for many years and factored into most of the current climate models. This is, bluntly put, OLD NEWS….

Now, about that trumpeting of a new "Little Ice Age"…..

NOWHERE does Dr. Zharkova claim that a "Little Ice Age" is coming; all she states is that, based on her model, a new Maunder Minimum event is due about 2030. The "Little Ice Age" line was inserted in the press release (making a casual (and wholly unsubstantiated) connection between the two events). Which, in turn, was picked up by the scientifically ignorant press looking for juicy headlines and trumpeted as "A New Ice Age Cometh!". And swallowed (hook, line and sinker) by an even MORE scientifically ignorant and gullible public. Once again, as Mandt2 correctly pointed out, the reporters have screwed it up yet again….

So….

Mako- No irony, no controversy, and NO LITTLE ICE AGE…

You can pack that parka away….

Yeah when carbon is only 3 parts of 22,000 how can it be the cause of anything.

And your peer reviewed, scientific research to back such an assumption?

While you're digging (without success), you may want to peruse this:

link

Its real, so get use to it….

We've always been at war with Eastasia!

We've always been at war with Eastasia!

AH! But one should never get involved in a land war in Asia!

So we were having increase Co2 many years ago when it was hotter than it is now.

Must have been all of those SUV's back in the 1960's.

Oh wait SUV's weren't around back in the 1960's.

It was the Corvair.

If we had continued nuclear testing, this wouldn't be a problem.:)

Las Vegas would be lit up at night without any expenditure of power. Can't get more 'green' than that.:)

The Royal Astronomical Society's article on the same: link

If solar fluctuations have "little impact" on climate, what caused the Little Ice Age?

(Hums "Put another log on the fire…")

Since the links I posted above discuss this very question, I wouldn't say that you are "putting another log on the fire." But this from the Utah Geological Survey site:

What causes an ice age and glacial-interglacial cycles? Many factors contribute to climate variations, including changes in ocean and atmosphere circulation patterns, varying concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and even volcanic eruptions. The following discusses key factors in (1) initiating ice ages and (2) the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles.

But, mandt2, there's a 97% certainty of an ice age, AND, there was an ice age about 300 years ago, or so, which clearly seems to confirm the solar power output theory to climate temp fluctuations being a natural occurrence (not to mention all those over the last billion years, or so, that we are aware of).

Zharkova doesn't say that there is a 97% certainty of an ice age. The article says, Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%," said Zharkova. And as Coastal2 points out, nowhere does it say that the Sun's activity caused the ice-age.

To summarize the links I have posted, solar activity has an effect on global temps, and perhaps even climate, but it is tiny compared to other factors. Further, solar activity fluctuations can actually have inverse impact on local global temps.

Mako11, no offence meant, but you are obviously copying and pasting from a terrement manifesto email or PM.
--
Tim

The reference to "Put another log on the fire" was a test of nerd-fu. Y'all failed. Turn in your SF fan badges, please.

(You get 'em back if you can identify the reference without googling.)

I've no idea what it means – I had to google and ended up with a Waymin Jennings song. I didn't dare go further as country music can sometimes put me into anaphylactic shock. Apologirs to fans of the genre.
--
Tim

Mako, you're aware that you're spouting nonsense right?

During the Ordovician the Sun was younger and using the standard solar age/brightness relationship we can infer that the output was about 1% lower than present day values (And there is other evidence backing up this relationship between age and brightness, all of it consistent with the current understanding of chemistry, astronomy and particle physics. That being said, when the CO2 level dipped bellow 3000ppm due to rock weathering, the Earth had a glaciation… You understand why 60% is nonsense?

For more information on the drop of CO2 during the Ordovician, check you Young et al 2009 and Young et al 2010 for the detailed methodology on reading the rock weathering and inferring atmospheric CO2.

I'm away from my office, so I don't have access to the PDFs for those two articles, but I can get them next week when I'll be back.

Parzifal, I googled and still couldn't find it. My badge is yours. Now please explain. I'm only familiar with the Tompall Glaser song (written by Shel Silverstein, released on a compilation album also featuring Waylon Jennings: link )

Greenland.

Oh, I know this one: "What is an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark, located between the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans, east of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago?"

The reference to "Put another log on the fire" was a test of nerd-fu. Y'all failed. Turn in your SF fan badges, please.

So your question was bogus? You already knew that solar activity doesn't doesn't have a significant effect on climate? And in fact, that ice ages and climate change are very different things? Really?

It was the Corvair.

It's true! I had a Corvair. The air-conditioning didn't work, and the carbon monoxide leaking from the exhaust manifold into the passenger compartment made it feel like Bejing in August.

Global warming has occurred many times before.

So, What? The planet will alter, as it has before, and coral reefs will disappear, and life forms will go extinct or adapt. It has all happened before. Just because one species that THINKS in our terms is on the planet THIS time, and is the cause THIS time, does not change the global warming itself. That is the same, regardless of causes. Warming is as warming does.

And I don't care two pins worth what happens to the coral reefs or animal species due to the warming THIS time around. The warming itself is natural. The Earth adapts, morphs, kills off life here, promotes it more there, changes occur and life goes on.

The reefs will reappear sometime, somewhere else. "Sharks" will still be with us, though some species might not be.

Elephant-like mammals of currently small size might find themselves adapting to larger and larger sizes. "Elephants" are only one of many earlier now-extinct "cousins". Ditto the "great cats". But I am deeply worried for the platypus. I don't think it will make it.

Oh, well. Life goes on. Platypuses can join the 99.9% already extinct species of all life that has ever lived on Earth up till now.

So can we, for that matter.

But we are "smart". We are adaptable. We are evolution savvy. We will in all likelihood still be here in copious, though reduced, numbers.

Local weather related disasters will no doubt occur. But homo sapiens are the one species that walks upright and moves anywhere on the planet. We'll move out and over to somewhere else, where the weather is fine, predictable (relatively) and food is plentiful. If there isn't enough to feed seven billion or more, then there will be fewer of us by "then"….

Global warming has occurred many times before.

Yes it has and the thing about those was they were not caused by man.

But that's not the point. "New" causes for warming can occur. And previously unknown causes can be discovered. Warming seems to be the "evil" being fought by the "greens". Why? Because they see, or think they see, threats to the planet as it is THIS time around. As if this version is somehow sacred because THIS time, homo sapiens is paying attention, and we ought to "put our oar in" and control things. Because we think we can. Ludicrous.

I want someone to prove that warming is "evil". Just because we caused it THIS time doesn't make the warming suddenly evil. It never was evil before. It just happened naturally. The greenies decry our having "caused" it THIS time, with our "unnatural" lifestyle releasing countless tons of "trapped" CO2 from fossil fuels in a geological heartbeat. Yet they don't seem to think that anything "they" propose as anthropomorphic interference is any less "evil". If our meddling is "evil", then that includes anything that "they" come up with to manipulate the warming.

Warming is natural. Manipulating is unnatural. Why is one manipulation okay while the other one is not?…

I get the impression that Ace would go camping, trash the area, and not restore it to the way it was originally because that would be "evil," in his words.

Take nothing but photographs, leave nothing but footprints, kill nothing but time.

The level of magnetic activity will drop. You won't be skating on the Thames.

As has been posted here before, fluctuations in the Sun's activity have little impact on the earth's climate, when compared to other factors.

Whew! I was concerned about that. See, I've noticed this massive global temperature fluctuation that happens on a *daily* basis. During certain parts of a 24 hour time cycle the teeny spec of dirt on the Earth I happen to live on is exposed directly to solar energy and then at other times the Earth rotates away from the Sun and isn't exposed directly to this energy. I've noticed that local temperatures can plunge 10, 20, or even 30 degrees in an incredibly short time period! And then the next day, the local temperature skyrockets 10, 20 or even 30 degrees in a short time period! And this other thing, I think called "Seasons" which exacerbate this cycle as the relative axial tilt of the spec of Earth I live on plus minor variations in the relative distance from the Sun results in even more dramatic local temperature changes. Sometimes water freezes and falls from the sky, and other times it evaporates and steams off of exposed water sources!

I'm really glad this massive ball of fusion-ignited flaming gas and radiation otherwise has no effect upon the Earth…

SB, usually you put forward arguments that make me think, and then in a Socratic way force me to better myself by finding the counter-argument or flaw in your logic. Thanks to our sparing here and on the fez, I've become very well acquainted with the current literature on climate. This however, concerns me, since you don't fall for the temperature/climate fallacy. Unless that was meant as sarcasm, which I often have trouble reading absent of other verbal/body language clues.

Hope you get better for the next round,
Cheers,
Martin

Unless that was meant as sarcasm, which I often have trouble reading absent of other verbal/body language clues.

It's only slightly sarc because it's absurd to eliminate the Sun from any real discussion of the Earth's climate, as AGW devotees are so quick to do. We have a clear historical pattern established linking solar energy output with significant climate change on the Earth.

This however, concerns me, since you don't fall for the temperature/climate fallacy.

Shouldn't be. The "climate" is really only the aggregate of local temperature readings over time, so you can't dismiss it as being entirely separate.

What I find most interesting is that there's a completely serious, hard science discipline that is providing interesting data and predictions about the Earth's climate, but since it runs counter to AGW dogma it is dismissed and attacked.

1)http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Index_FINAL.pdf
If you look at the index of the WG1 IPCC report, you'll see that the sun is discussed at length, but to borrow from Dr. Richard Alley from Pen State, the sun is the fine control knob and CO2 is the macro knob on the earth's thermostat.

2)

What I find most interesting is that there's a completely serious, hard science discipline that is providing interesting data and predictions about the Earth's climate, but since it runs counter to AGW dogma it is dismissed and attacked.

Or their are acting like this guy from XKCD and is making pronouncements about a complex system from limited understanding.

xkcd.com/793

jpattern2…..correct!

How is it relevant to "global warming", "climate change" or
"global cooling"?

Interesting philosophy, Ace…

Let's expand on that a bit…

Your doctor tells you have colon cancer. And presents the treatment options. Now, if you were to follow your line of thought, you'd refuse all treatment as this would interfere (or 'manipulate') the natural course of the disease. And then you'd die.

Of course, that's an idiotic notion. We have a host of treatment options and a sane person is going to avail themselves of every last one of them. To do otherwise would be idiotic.

The same applies to the climate. We have a problem, we know why we have the problem and we have the tools to address the problem. To do otherwise would be idiotic.

What I find most interesting is that there's a completely serious, hard science discipline that is providing interesting data and predictions about the Earth's climate, but since it runs counter to AGW dogma it is dismissed and attacked.

If you're referring to the original posting, then you should also note that that research in NO WAY was predicting ANYTHING regarding the Earth's climate. The only very limited reference was in regards to predicting the next Maunder Minimum event. Whose impact on climate cooling is, at best, marginal.

No attacking another discipline because it 'runs counter to AGW dogma'. The effects of a Maunder Minimum event are well understood by BOTH climate scientists and solar scientists.

Davoust, we added the CO2, we should try to remove what we can.

It doesn't matter that we can't clean up the campsites of others. We should at least clean up our own.

The effects of a Maunder Minimum event are well understood by BOTH climate scientists and solar scientists.

So you're saying that the Maunder Min didn't have any effect on the Earth's climate?

So you're saying that the Maunder Min didn't have any effect on the Earth's climate?

To the tune of about 0.26°C cooling, yes. But the effect would last only a few decades (at best) and be quickly reversed. Compared to other inputs, this one is very small. The impact of solar fluctuations on climate is rather well understood.

@coastal2: Treating global warming like fatal colon cancer is non sequitur. Warming NEVER caused the death of the Earth before. It won't now either. It is not the end of anything except a few species that won't adapt, which will not include us (despite the doomsayer script writers of "Interstellar"). Life will go on and continue to evolve. Eons from now there will be massive animals and microscopic animals just like now just like always.

Why are we not mourning the dinosaurs and the giant mammals that followed?

I like rhinos. They are very cool to look at. John Wayne getting a rhino horn through his virtual thigh was very cool. The hippo in Disneyland got shot several times a day for decades. Hippos remain free from endangerment in spite of all those blanks. That's because hippos are dangerous, the most dangerous large mammal on the planet.

AGW will not likely kill off the hippos or rhinos. But we just might do it long before the planet warming up changes the ecology everywhere. We ought to be stringing up poachers by their thumbs instead of buying their kills on some gov't supported "black market".

Maybe warming will make poaching pointless somehow. You never can tell.

The point is, warming will happen regardless of what we try and do. All we can do is make life for people worse by trying. Nothing, no "solution", has moved in the direction of improving anything, let alone raising the quality of life in developing nations. Why is that? Why can't "solutions" actively promote improvement? Because it isn't about improvement. It is about control. Control the science through promotion and you get your scenario.

AGW is the best thing to come along in thousands of years just at the time when global interests need a casus belli. Science says "mankind is doing it". And the power mongers are running with it. And making scientists toe the line if they want to keep working. I don't believe in a scientific cover up or conspiracy….

Because it isn't about improvement. It is about control. Control the science through promotion and you get your scenario.

AGW is the best thing to come along in thousands of years just at the time when global interests need a casus belli. Science says "mankind is doing it". And the power mongers are running with it. And making scientists toe the line if they want to keep working. I don't believe in a scientific cover up or conspiracy….

Seriously? Now THAT'S a conversation killer if every there was one….

Parzival-that'd be Shel Silverstein who wrote that.

I think it's pretty funny that the reaction to this solar science news has all sorts of qualifiers attached -- oh, the Sun-Earth relationship is so complex, there are other dynamic feedback cycles and factors we're not certain about, it could be this influence plus that influence, etc.,, etc. But when it's AGW -- no hesitation, crystal clear that is and can only be CO2! Stop discussing it further, it's SETTLED! There's no complexity that's not understood, no doubt, no qualifiers!