Scientist: Forget Global Warming, Prepare for New Ice Age

[b_justb]

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Sunspot activity has not resumed up after hitting an 11-year low in March last year, raising fears that — far from warming — the globe is about to return to an Ice Age, says an Australian-American scientist.

Physicist Phil Chapman, the first native-born Australian to become an astronaut with NASA [he became an American citizen to join up, though he never went into space], said pictures from the U.S. Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) showed no spots on the sun.

| story |

And around and around it goes …

 

[peregrinus_WA]

1981 all over again :hypno: :whacky:

 

[The_Barbarian]

Someone’s taken advantage of your trust in them:

**Study: Global cooling a 1970s myth
Asheville, N.C. (UPI) Feb 21, 2008
A U.S. climatologist said there was no consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed for a new ice age.
Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center said a survey of scientific journals of the era showed that only seven supported global cooling, 44 predicted warming and 20 others were neutral, USA Today reported Thursday.

“An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting ‘global cooling’ and an ‘imminent’ ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming,” Peterson said in the report, co-authored by William Connolly of the British Antarctic Survey and John Fleck of The Albuquerque Journal.

The study, which will be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, said a review of the literature suggests that greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking.**
terradaily.com/reports/Study_Global_cooling_a_1970s_myth_999.html

Note that although the “scientists thought it was global cooling” hoax wasn’t true, there are always a few out of the hundreds of thousands who will take a contrarian position, like the one you cited. Problem for him is, things keep getting warmer, not colder. Sunspots do lead to warming periods, but apparently anthropogenic warming is now a larger effect than the sunspot cycle. Probably a good thing, if the cycle is subdued, this time.

However, regarding this…

Sunspot activity has not resumed up after hitting an 11-year low in March last year, raising fears that — far from warming — the globe is about to return to an Ice Age, says an Australian-American scientist.

I dunno. These…



…sure look like sunspots to me.

**As if to remind us it is still there, the Sun has put on an explosive show of sunspots, flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs). This is quite surprising as only last month it was declared that the Sun had just started a new solar cycle, and a period of minimum activity. Up until now, the solar disk has been void of any observable features… but like an invasion party, three sunspots have rotated into view, showing complex arcs of magnetic fieldlines (coronal loops), blasting plasma into space by the biggest flare observed this year. **
universetoday.com/2008/03/26/the-sun-bursts-to-life-sunspots-flares-and-cmes/
(March 26, 2008)

Ooops. One more myth in the dumpster.

 

[pprimeau1976]

Ooops. One more myth in the dumpster.

Wait a minute…the same website you cited (universetoday.com) went on to say the following about these sunspots:

Interestingly, these sunspots are not from a new cycle, they are actually “left overs” from the previous cycle. Solar astronomers know this by analysing Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI) images from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) currently observing the Sun. The MDI instrument has revealed that the sunspots are of the same polarity as the spots from the previous solar cycle, and not from “Solar Cycle 24”.(emphasis was part of the original text)

Even NASA admits the following (from Solar Cycle 24 site)

Strange but True: While Solar Cycle 24 has begun, Solar Cycle 23 has not ended. Both cycles will coexist for a period of time, perhaps a year or more, as one dies down and the other comes to life. In the months ahead we may see old-cycle sunspots and new-cycle sunspots on the sun at the same time.

 

[K-McD]

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Sunspot activity has not resumed up after hitting an 11-year low in March last year, raising fears that — far from warming — the globe is about to return to an Ice Age, says an Australian-American scientist.

Physicist Phil Chapman, the first native-born Australian to become an astronaut with NASA [he became an American citizen to join up, though he never went into space], said pictures from the U.S. Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) showed no spots on the sun.

| story |

And around and around it goes …

Very funny. And the hoax continues.

Go from the Global Cooling hoax … to the Global Warming hoax … and now back to the Global Cooling hoax. So, who’ll be the high priest of Global Cooling?

 

[pprimeau1976]

So, who’ll be the high priest of Global Cooling?

Maybe it will be Governor Schwartzenegger? Maybe he’ll get his Mr. Freeze outfit out?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[K-McD]

Maybe it will be Governor Schwartzenegger? Maybe he’ll get his Mr. Freeze outfit out?

http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/Mr. Freeze.gif

Very Good!

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Ooops. One more myth in the dumpster.
Wait a minute…the same website you cited (universetoday.com) went on to say the following about these sunspots:

NASA shows that the old cycle has not ended, but a new cycle has begun:
Strange but True: While Solar Cycle 24 has begun, Solar Cycle 23 has not ended. Both cycles will coexist for a period of time, perhaps a year or more, as one dies down and the other comes to life. In the months ahead we may see old-cycle sunspots and new-cycle sunspots on the sun at the same time.

Right. It should be quite calm as the new cycle starts, but large sunspots from the old one persist. That happens from time to time. Not surprising. Just pointing out that your guy is completely wrong about sunspots, and given that warming is proceeding, there’s no evidence whatever to support his idea.

This latest hoax is pretty much like the earlier one. It depends on taking a dissenting view, and pretending it’s the majority opinion:

**Study: Global cooling a 1970s myth
Asheville, N.C. (UPI) Feb 21, 2008
A U.S. climatologist said there was no consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed for a new ice age.
Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center said a survey of scientific journals of the era showed that only seven supported global cooling, 44 predicted warming and 20 others were neutral, USA Today reported Thursday.

“An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting ‘global cooling’ and an ‘imminent’ ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming,” Peterson said in the report, co-authored by William Connolly of the British Antarctic Survey and John Fleck of The Albuquerque Journal.

The study, which will be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, said a review of the literature suggests that greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking.**
terradaily.com/reports/St…_myth_999.html

 

[Erich]

apparently anthropogenic warming is now a larger effect than the sunspot cycle

Does that mean anthropogenic warming is also a larger effect than the sunspot cycle with respect to Mars?

I can’t imagine that a grand total of two “SUVs” (Spirit and Opportunity) on the entire planet could be the major cause of the diminishing carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’ south pole for three summers in a row

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I’ve been waiting for a New Ice Age for literally eons.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Does that mean anthropogenic warming is also a larger effect than the sunspot cycle with respect to Mars?

No, it means Mars is currently a bit closer to the sun than it has been. Likewise, Pluto is colder than it has been recently, because it’s farther out. You can’t map Earth variations onto other planets.

can’t imagine that a grand total of two “SUVs” (Spirit and Opportunity) on the entire planet could be the major cause of the diminishing carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’ south pole for three summers in a row

And now you know why. Oh, and the “sunspots say a new ice age” guy isn’t backed up by Pluto getting colder, either.

 

[manualman]

Dunno about a thorough examination of the periodicals, but my UW Madison “Global Physical Environments” prof in 1991 STILL subscribed to the theory that we were very likely about to embark upon another ice age - and taught it in class.

Call that one data point if you like.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Study: Global cooling a 1970s myth
Asheville, N.C. (UPI) Feb 21, 2008
A U.S. climatologist said there was no consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed for a new ice age.

And there is no “consensus” now, either…nor is science run by consensus, but rather, by facts.

 

[The_Barbarian]

And there is no “consensus” now, either…

The deniers in the scientific community are vastly outnumbered. Few climatologists doubt warming.

nor is science run by consensus, but rather, by facts

From that, I can tell you’ve never done science. There is no “official science”; a theory is considered true when a consensus of scientists accept it. It’s all on consensus. No governing body sets theory.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Dunno about a thorough examination of the periodicals, but my UW Madison “Global Physical Environments” prof in 1991 STILL subscribed to the theory that we were very likely about to embark upon another ice age - and taught it in class.

Call that one data point if you like.

There’s a guy in New Mexico who thinks the Earth is flat. That’s a data point, too. And just as meaningful. Even in the 70s, a few people thought cooling was possible. But the consensus was that it was not, and even then, most were concerned about warming.

 

[Yerusalyim]

The lack of consensus is over causes of global warming, if it’s truly occuring and at what rate. There’s a lot of ugly stuff out there…temperature gages in heat pools, etc. Even the role (if any) of carbon in GW is debated…some scientists are suggesting that the warming increases the amount of carbon rather than carbon causing the warming. There is no consensus, it’s being debated. A lot of questions remain unanswered. The GW fanatics don’t want to address questions such as "what is the role of the sun in GW? When someone explains why Mars is also undergoing GW without the benefit of humans we can have a real conversation.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The lack of consensus is over causes of global warming, if it’s truly occuring and at what rate.

That’s well established. Even many deniers have switched over to “yes, it’s happening, but it’s not our fault.” The debate now is just political, not scientific. You see a lot of people who are (perhaps justifiably) scared that it will mean more regulation. However, the fact that something bad might happen if the truth is known, is not license to deny the truth.

The GW fanatics don’t want to address questions such as "what is the role of the sun in GW?

An 8th grader could tell you what scientists say about that. And you just learned something important about the role of the sun in 12 year sunspot cycles.

When someone explains why Mars is also undergoing GW without the benefit of humans we can have a real conversation.

Hint: It’s the same reason that Pluto’s atmosphere is currently cooling off, but Pluto is currently farther from the sun than usual.

You can’t extrapolate Earth climate to other planets. Some are warming, and some are cooling.

 

[Yerusalyim]

The thing that Mars and the Earth share are the SUN. IF there is global warming, the mostly likely suspect is the SUN…but the fanatics want to blame it on Carbon dioxide.

 

[manualman]

Barbarian, perhaps you can point me to some AGW info on the recent NASA Aqua satellite data. I heard from a source of unknown reliability that the AGW theory relies heavily on the premise of a ‘feedback loop’ in which the slightly warmer air resulting from CO2 greenhouse gas increase would result in higher upper atmospheric water vapor concentrations (which are a much MORE effective greenhouse gas). And a viscious cycle ensues.

In response to the theory, NASA launched this Aqua satellite to determine if increases in temperature DID elevate upper atmospheric water vapor concentrations. Reportedly AGW scientists have been perplexed to find that this is NOT the case (even though the current IPCC computer models all ASSUME that it is).

The short version, to me, sounds like “Humans are preposterously arrogant to think they have even 10% of the knowledge and comprehension necessary to project future climate trends. As usual with computers, GIGO.”

 

[The_Barbarian]

The thing that Mars and the Earth share are the SUN.

Pluto does, too. But the atmosphere of Pluto is getting colder. Unless you’re really, really desperate to find an argument against global warming, this isn’t it.