A new Ice Age approaches?

[Pax_et_Bonum]

A new Ice Age approaches?

POSTED AT 9:25 AM ON JUNE 15, 2011 BY ED MORRISSEY
PRINTER-FRIENDLY

Old and busted: global warming. New hotness: coldness. Reports from three different studies released yesterday point to the possibility of an extended period of solar inactivity not seen for three hundred years, and one that could bring a new mini-Ice Age:

According to three studies released in the United States on Tuesday, experts believe the familiar sunspot cycle may be shutting down and heading toward a pattern of inactivity unseen since the 17th century.

The signs include a missing jet stream, fading spots, and slower activity near the poles, said experts from the National Solar Observatory and Air Force Research Laboratory.

‘This is highly unusual and unexpected,’ said Frank Hill, associate director of the NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network.

‘But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.’

NASA reminds us what happened during the last such extended period of hibernation, called the Maunder Minimum, occurred:

Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the “Little Ice Age” when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.

hotair.com/archives/2011/06/15/a-new-ice-age-approaches/

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

I guess the sky isn’t falling after all.We’ll have to redistribute the worlds income to us Northern Countries now so we don’t freeze to death;God DOES have a sense of humour.All the Global warming fanatics now resemble Wile E. Coyote after one of his Acme purchases just went Ka-Blam! in his face.Meep!Meep!

 

[Kaninchen]

I’ve only ever commented on one global warming thread and that was to the effect that I thought that arguing whether it’s warming or not was missing the point, the evidence would seem to suggest that the weather is getting weirder. Even those of us who live in climates that are always pretty unpredictable - like the UK where, even in a lengthy heatwave, it’s sensible to have an umbrella and warm jacket somewhere around, just in case - have noticed.

So, I think there may be sets of real problems to be faced but, for those of us with a sneaking suspicion that we’re stuck in the middle of an argument between two sets of agenda-driven cranks, we’re left wondering just what is to be done?

 

[DaveBj]

It’s gonna be kinda hard to blame the policies of the Bush administration for decreased solar activity, altho I’m sure there’s someone somewhere who’s gonna try

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

I’ve only ever commented on one global warming thread and that was to the effect that I thought that arguing whether it’s warming or not was missing the point, the evidence would seem to suggest that the weather is getting weirder. Even those of us who live in climates that are always pretty unpredictable - like the UK where, even in a lengthy heatwave, it’s sensible to have an umbrella and warm jacket somewhere around, just in case - have noticed.

So, I think there may be sets of real problems to be faced but, for those of us with a sneaking suspicion that we’re stuck in the middle of an argument between two sets of agenda-driven cranks, we’re left wondering just what is to be done?

The weather has ALWAYS been weird.There are too many factors that affect it.We’ve had at least 5 ice ages during the past 50.000 years alone.Greenland was called Greenland because the Vikings could grow grapes.As the weather turned colder they abandoned their colonies as they did in Newfoundland,Canada.The Great Lakes where I’m from were formed by mammoth 3 mile high ice walls.A couple of hundred years ago you could ice-skate on the Thames and other English rivers.

If it IS caused by greenhouse gases which i seriously doubt as do a myriad of scientists it is too late to reverse it and we will adjust as we always have.The sky is NOT falling.

 

[Kaninchen]

The weather has ALWAYS been weird.There are too many factors that affect it.We’ve had at least 5 ice ages during the past 50.000 years alone.Greenland was called Greenland because the Vikings could grow grapes.As the weather turned colder they abandoned their colonies as they did in Newfoundland,Canada.The Great Lakes where I’m from were formed by mammoth 3 mile high ice walls.A couple of hundred years ago you could ice-skate on the Thames and other English rivers.

If it IS caused by greenhouse gases which i seriously doubt as do a myriad of scientists it is too late to reverse it and we will adjust as we always have.The sky is NOT falling.

I didn’t say it was falling and all those grapes etc are making my point for me. We live in a very complex system of weather, we also live in a very complex system of agriculture etc and I have about as much faith in the ‘don’t panic’ outlook as the ‘panic’ outlook.

Perhaps it’s being Jewish and having always had something of a Joseph and the good years/lean years approach to life in general but I think the point is being missed in the agendas.

 

[kimmielittle]

A new Ice Age approaches?

POSTED AT 9:25 AM ON JUNE 15, 2011 BY ED MORRISSEY
PRINTER-FRIENDLY

Old and busted: global warming. New hotness: coldness. Reports from three different studies released yesterday point to the possibility of an extended period of solar inactivity not seen for three hundred years, and one that could bring a new mini-Ice Age:

According to three studies released in the United States on Tuesday, experts believe the familiar sunspot cycle may be shutting down and heading toward a pattern of inactivity unseen since the 17th century.

The signs include a missing jet stream, fading spots, and slower activity near the poles, said experts from the National Solar Observatory and Air Force Research Laboratory.

‘This is highly unusual and unexpected,’ said Frank Hill, associate director of the NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network.

‘But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.’

NASA reminds us what happened during the last such extended period of hibernation, called the Maunder Minimum, occurred:

Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the “Little Ice Age” when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.

hotair.com/archives/2011/06/15/a-new-ice-age-approaches/

Thank you for the link.

I, and many others, have been waiting for these reports,

One point to consider…these three solar reporters have not yet fallen to the Politics involved with AGW. I think, we can pretty well view them as unbiased sources.

 

[Blacksword]

If it IS caused by greenhouse gases which i seriously doubt as do a myriad of scientists it is too late to reverse it and we will adjust as we always have.The sky is NOT falling.

I’m sorry but this is absolutely false. It is a matter of established scientific fact that CO2 concentration increases in the atmosphere have a warming effect on the Earth. No scientist debates this at all. It is as certain a thing as there is in science. How much of an effect, how much CO2 increase is our fault, and what the ultimate effect will be on the planet, these are unknowns.

 

[Blacksword]

Thank you for the link.

I, and many others, have been waiting for these reports,

One point to consider…these three solar reporters have not yet fallen to the Politics involved with AGW. I think, we can pretty well view them as unbiased sources.

True, although these are early predictions/possibilities, and we don’t know yet what the sun is going to do. Also, if this does come to pass it doesn’t mean that the scientists warning of warming dangers were wrong, it simply means that another, unforeseen variable (the sun changing its activity) has changed the course of things.

Again, we absolutely know as a matter of basic science what CO2 does in the atmosphere; it traps heat.

 

[Orogeny]

So, I think there may be sets of real problems to be faced but, for those of us with a sneaking suspicion that we’re stuck in the middle of an argument between two sets of agenda-driven cranks, we’re left wondering just what is to be done?

Agree 100%.

Peace

Tim

 

[gilliam]

Weather and climate are both very complex.

CO2 does contribute to the earth’s warming, but it also contributes to more crops growing and another of other positive things.

The sun is going through a cool down cycle. That can be a bad thing for crops. The CO2 level may be helping to balance some of the cool down on the earth.

It is very complicated. A good article on the sun spot news is here:
“All three of these lines of research to point to the familiar sunspot cycle shutting down for a while.”

and

NASA JPL on New Insights on How Solar Minimums Affect Earth

 

[kimmielittle]

I’m sorry but this is absolutely false. It is a matter of established scientific fact that CO2 concentration increases in the atmosphere have a warming effect on the Earth. No scientist debates this at all.

Actually wrong;

Maybe this will help. Read the comments to the article too - as it was challenged ]. It is fairly new release by 20+ Scientist

co2insanity.com/2011/04/18/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-in-three-simple-steps/

CO2 - for AGW to work, has to be the only driver of climate.

Remember, the AGW hypothesis ONLY goes after CO2 They attempt to exclude all other variables down to CO2 as the culprit.

This hypothesis works within models, but isn’t standing up to real world observations.

Here is the basic premise.

The science behind the AGW hypothesis is that increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere (that humans produce by burning fossil fuels) will block more outgoing long-wave IR radiation (OLR) from exiting the atmosphere and thereby warm the surface. It is well-known that IR radiation causes CO2 molecules to vibrate, but only at very specific wavelengths (wavelengths are the distances between peaks of each wave), and that wavelength is 15µm. (Fifteen µm means that each wavelength crests at a distance of 15 millionths of a meter.) As was discussed above, this vibration of the molecule causes it to heat and then radiate IR radiation back toward the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth. If the solar activity is taken to remain constant, more CO2 in the atmosphere will trap more of the OLR, and thus cause a net heating of the planet.

Remember in these models the Solar is taken at a constant - we know this isn’t true.

Now comes three satellite reports:
Three journal papers report the data from three monitoring satellites that have measured the OLR of 1997 and 2006 and compared those measurements to 1970, and they are located here, here, and here.

Read the article here americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html

The results of three different peer-reviewed papers show that over a period of 36 years, there is no reduction of OLR emissions in wavelengths that CO2 absorb.

The hypothesis fails in real world observation.

It is as certain a thing as there is in science.

The American Physical Society this month said “there is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”

The American Meteorological Society, global warming hasn’t given us more cyclones, hurricanes, or tornados.

The Colorado Centre For Astrodynamics Research show that global sea levels, after having risen since 2000, have been falling significantly over the last 2 years.

In addition, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, sea ice has grown rapidly in that same time frame and there is now more ice in the world than usually observed. are not matching model projections.

Real world observations are not matching model projections.

 

[jimtheplumber]

If a new ice age is coming is it not a good thing we have been heating the planet

 

[Raskolnikov]

kimmielittle:

One point to consider…these three solar reporters have not yet fallen to the Politics involved with AGW. I think, we can pretty well view them as unbiased sources.

If you believe that believing in AGW is sufficient grounds for dismissal of one’s credibility, then are you aware that that in itself is a bias of yours?

I certainly hope this isn’t true. It’s already so cold in Cleveland, I’ve been hoping global warming would come through for us. I think I can do without Florida if it meant less than 7 moths of winter.

 

[Blacksword]

Actually wrong;

Maybe this will help. Read the comments to the article too - as it was challenged ]. It is fairly new release by 20+ Scientist

co2insanity.com/2011/04/18/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-in-three-simple-steps/

CO2 - for AGW to work, has to be the only driver of climate.

Remember, the AGW hypothesis ONLY goes after CO2 They attempt to exclude all other variables down to CO2 as the culprit.

This hypothesis works within models, but isn’t standing up to real world observations.

Here is the basic premise.

Remember in these models the Solar is taken at a constant - we know this isn’t true.

Now comes three satellite reports:
Three journal papers report the data from three monitoring satellites that have measured the OLR of 1997 and 2006 and compared those measurements to 1970, and they are located here, here, and here.

Read the article here americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html

The results of three different peer-reviewed papers show that over a period of 36 years, there is no reduction of OLR emissions in wavelengths that CO2 absorb.

The hypothesis fails in real world observation.

The American Physical Society this month said “there is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”

The American Meteorological Society, global warming hasn’t given us more cyclones, hurricanes, or tornados.

The Colorado Centre For Astrodynamics Research show that global sea levels, after having risen since 2000, have been falling significantly over the last 2 years.

In addition, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, sea ice has grown rapidly in that same time frame and there is now more ice in the world than usually observed. are not matching model projections.

Real world observations are not matching model projections.

Sorry, not buying the first link you gave. I see a couple of guys quoted in it from this team of “Slayers” and I don’t see anywhere that indicates the published an actual peer-reviewed scientific paper in a respected journal. There are literally thousands and thousands of peer-reviewed papers publish in such journals supporting the basic premisis of CO2 having a warming effect on the atmosphere.

Now if the American Physical Society says there is a serious debate about anthropogenic causes of global warming, that I’m prepared to accept. I didn’t say otherwise, only that the basic science on CO2’s effects is well established. Again, as to it’s effects, that’s where things get murky.

Moreover, if these “Slayers” had actually proved that it cools the atmosphere, they’d be winning some Nobel Prizes shortly, and it would have been all over the news!

 

[kimmielittle]

If you believe that believing in AGW is sufficient grounds for dismissal of one’s credibility, then are you aware that that in itself is a bias of yours?

Actually, my bias is in Authoritarian - Politicized - Science.

I think, it’s a shame that Billions of dollars spent, 30 years 40 years 50 years years spent…and we are no closer to knowing why climate changes .

Might we have made better use of the time and Billions of Dollars - had we tried not to condemn one culprit?

I certainly hope this isn’t true. It’s already so cold in Cleveland, I’ve been hoping global warming would come through for us. I think I can do without Florida if it meant less than 7 moths of winter.

Just IMO…I think we are in for cooler climates - AND that is more harmful than slightly warmer climate.

 

[irishpatrick]

Actually, my bias is in Authoritarian - Politicized - Science.

I think, it’s a shame that Billions of dollars spent, 30 years 40 years 50 years years spent…and we are no closer to knowing why climate changes .

Might we have made better use of the time and Billions of Dollars - had we tried not to condemn one culprit?

Just IMO…I think we are in for cooler climates - AND that is more harmful than slightly warmer climate.

Exactly. Slightly warmer climate is a very good thing…an even slightly colder climate is a very bad thing.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Actually, my bias is in Authoritarian - Politicized - Science.

I think, it’s a shame that Billions of dollars spent, 30 years 40 years 50 years years spent…and we are no closer to knowing why climate changes .

Might we have made better use of the time and Billions of Dollars - had we tried not to condemn one culprit?

Just IMO…I think we are in for cooler climates - AND that is more harmful than slightly warmer climate.

Considering that the world’s populations is still increasing and that we are seeing crop failures in many different areas, ya, rough times could be ahead.

 

[manualman]

I didn’t say it was falling and all those grapes etc are making my point for me. We live in a very complex system of weather, we also live in a very complex system of agriculture etc and I have about as much faith in the ‘don’t panic’ outlook as the ‘panic’ outlook.

Perhaps it’s being Jewish and having always had something of a Joseph and the good years/lean years approach to life in general but I think the point is being missed in the agendas.

We’ve never agreed more completely (except I’m not Jewish, so who knows where I get it).

Personally, I think the answer is to stop looking for THE answer and embrace the fact that both weather and climate are weird and make sure we have a diversified approach to agriculture able to support humanity in a variety of scenarios. We like to think we’re smart enough to develop THE answer, but we really aren’t.

If anything the homogenous solution approach makes us MORE vulnerable rather than less. Agriculture, energy, land development, education… You name it and humanity seems to be in a huge push to homogenize everything. I don’t get it.

I’m not convinced that weather is any wilder than it’s always been. There’s a reason that weather has always been and will always be a staple of small talk. What HAS changed is how connected we are. Nobody really used to know if a tornado levelled a small town three states away 75 years ago. Today it is national news for a week. Plus humanity has a much larger physical footprint on earth than we used to. Random weather disasters occurring at fairly constant rates will thus demolish more structures today than they did 75 years ago.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

We’ve never agreed more completely (except I’m not Jewish, so who knows where I get it).

Personally, I think the answer is to stop looking for THE answer and embrace the fact that both weather and climate are weird and make sure we have a diversified approach to agriculture able to support humanity in a variety of scenarios. We like to think we’re smart enough to develop THE answer, but we really aren’t.

If anything the homogenous solution approach makes us MORE vulnerable rather than less. Agriculture, energy, land development, education… You name it and humanity seems to be in a huge push to homogenize everything. I don’t get it.

I’m not convinced that weather is any wilder than it’s always been. There’s a reason that weather has always been and will always be a staple of small talk. What HAS changed is how connected we are. Nobody really used to know if a tornado levelled a small town three states away 75 years ago. Today it is national news for a week. Plus humanity has a much larger physical footprint on earth than we used to. Random weather disasters occurring at fairly constant rates will thus demolish more structures today than they did 75 years ago.

If you look at paleozoology, creatures that specialize and faile to maintain the capacity to adapt always go extinct, precisely because the climate changes and their anatomical and physiological mechanisms are not suitable for the changing environment. I think this lends well to your theory of homogenaity. It is the push to stop our ability to adapt to changing conditions, because politicians and bureaucrats seem to think they can control everything.