Slashdot Mirror
No, We're Not Headed For a New Ice Age
purkinje writes "Unusual calm in the solar cycle — called a solar activity minimum — has sparked claims that the Sun will cool the Earth, leading us into a new ice age. While Europe did experience a Little Ice Age during a solar activity minimum three centuries ago, the connection between sunspots and climate is a lot more complicated, and it's unlikely this change in the Sun's activity will cool Earth down — or even affect the climate at all. Plus, any cooling that might come from this would be less than the global warming that's been going on. So don't pull out that parka yet; a new ice age seems more than unlikely."
First Post!
Unlikely or politically undesirable? Hmm...
Yay!
Right-wing talking point dis-proven, that is not news, that is called Friday.
If they wanted it to be news they would run the story on Monday.
Now get off my lawn, caveman!
We're currently in an interglacial period of the current ice age, so it's not a matter of moving towards another one, but how long the interglacial period will last, and how if we're moving into a glaciation period will humanity be effecting that.
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
Probably the biggest thing sparking skepticism about man-made global warming are articles like these. "Please ignore that fiery nuclear furnace behind the curtain."
Just admit you don't have everything figured out. I know that may give rise to healthy skepticism. People may not want to spend trillions in dollars to fix a problem you aren't certain about.
As an aside, it is interesting that the other time of cold temperatures (late 18th century) corresponds to lower sun spot activity.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
there is no consensus on global cooling?
I bet you're sorry now you spent all that money and effort on battling global warming.
Of course we are not headed for a new ice age. You can't have an ice age without mammoths.
Nobody is working on cloning mammoths, right?
That we've been in a cooling period since 1998 that has reversed ALL of the observed warming that took place previously in the early 20th Century and more.
The assertion that the calm Sun activity won't reverse the warming is true only in that there is no longer any warming to reverse.
As a child of the 80s, this is what we were being told in schools growing up - not that the earth would die from global warming, but rather that the hole in the ozone layer and other environmental disasters would cause us to be plunged into a new ice age.
I guess the term "climate change" is a lot more useful than "global warming", if a few decade late.
Who needs science when we have your unedchumicated opinion that ya just spew out. Lets just all ignore the sun's effect on heating and lighting the planet when we have your computer models that can't predict the past, present, future, or weather next week. Thanks for clearing it all up for us.
I've always found people who go on and on about global warming extremely annoying. They talk about saving the earth and the environment but the bottom line is it's about saving the status quo. There have been times in earths history when it was much hotter than it is now and much colder. Humans will survive and so will the earth. If or when the last man bites the dirt the earth will still be here live in kicking unless we managed to do something really bad like strip away the atmosphere.
Denialists are the only ones who have "everything figured out". Their adherence to their pet theory is immune to any criticism and when was the last time you saw error bars on a trend line from a denialist?
But if you look at the IPCC reports, you'll find that the climate science IS saying "We haven't figured it all out", but since you STILL insist that this isn't the case, rather proves that your statement is, in bald fact, false.
NOTE: They DO say "we've figured out enough to know what we ought to do". That's not "we know it all" by any stretch. A barking dog snarling at you is evidence that you should retreat backwards, but it doesn't mean you know all about canine psychology.
They are extremely pro AWG. They may be right but they only show one side of the picture. There is no room for debate in their eyes. I wonder if they are heavy invested in carbon dioxide credits.
Star Trek, there maybe hope.
I'm not believing anything until Al Gore says it's so.
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
is there anything they can agree on?
People will believe facts that bolster their preconceived opinions. They will disregard or twist facts that do not.
I used to believe that CO2 could cause global warming but didn't think too deeply about it. Then they tried to erase the Medieval Warm Period. That got my attention and 'Global Warming' has become a bit of a hobby for me.
What I can say is that there is junk science on both sides of the debate. There is also good science on both sides of the debate.
There is plenty of historical evidence that, when there is a long period with few sunspots, there is global cooling. In fact, IMHO, the evidence is a lot more robust for that than is the evidence that CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming.
History is clear that when the temperature is as warm as it is now, or warmer, people have thrived. When the temperature was much cooler that it is now, humanity has suffered many calamities. I would far prefer a warmer planet to a colder one.
I would hope he actually meant LESS than unlikely. I would also hope that next time the editors spot the mistake and correct it.
Ice Age 4 coming in July 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Age_4
The writer of TFA is a well-known AGW advocate who routinely trolls everyone who isn't as pro-AGW as him, with all the charm and humor of a drunk fratboy. If you want to have serious discussion about this, find someone else to link to.
...or even affect the climate at all.
Not going to cause an ice age? OK, fine, that I believe. A significant drop in the source of nearly all heat for the planet not causing a change at all? Well now.
In the summary (emphasis mine):
...has sparked claims that the Sun will cool the Earth...
The Sun does not cool the Earth, nor did anyone claim that such was a possibility. It may simply warm it less, should the recent concerns pan out, but cooling it is out of the question. It's a giant ball of fire in the sky, not a giant A/C unit in the sky.
Spamming as AC, because the pro-bitcoin cult are modding in force today.
worst case scenario is the natural cooling will mask the manmade warming, lull unless into false complacency, and at some point in a century or so, we'll be dealing with a much warmer/ violent atmosphere
we're also beginning to push up against the limits of agriculture in terms of economically supporting the worlds population. combine that with climate hijinks, i figure somwhere in the next century, we're going to have some serious problems
of course, we can have less kids and control our carbon output, but this of course requires foresight and will power. so we're doomed. or rather, a whole lot of poor people ("screw 'em! their poor!" they said, as if they are immune to effects of that instability)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
From the linked article:
Note: a lot of this is taken from my book ... where I interviewed approximately a bazillion people.
This man is not a serious writer.
Winter is not coming.
Red on the inside (as in communist red for those of you who don't know your history which is most liberals).
The notion of AGW is nothing more than an attempt to control all aspects of everyone's lives; the ultimate boogey man to mandate top down regulation of everything you do. There is no evidence for man made global warming. To ignore the sun's immense impact on earth's climate and then suggest that CO2 is a pollutant shows your amazing lacking of common sense let alone critical thinking.
One way or the other or neither. Time will tell, not political science.
So an author (not a solar scientist) of a book writes a blurb for an online story with his opinion and refers to his book as proof?
Some of the NASA and other solar scientists are saying their is some probability of a lull in Solar Output based on the science evidence and models they form. Proof, no, not yet. But there are reasons to consider it possible.
More science observations and correlations will come in the next few years.
As my wife likes to say to folks who say "Global Warming is a Hoax!" and go off a parrot some opinion they've heard from the pundits, why not clean up the air (we've been having smog warnings for weeks now)? Hoax or not, the things that will stop Global Warming will also clean up the air, why can't we do that? They usually agree.
Now before someone posts something about my parroting comment, unless you analyzed the scientific data yourself, you are parroting another's opinion too - granted, parroting a climate scientist's opinion is a bit more valid than a pundit's opinion who is nothing more than a college dropout, but you're still regurgitating another's opinion.
I'm VERY SKEPTICAL of those computer modelers who claim to have sufficient climate data to validate their models!!!
dave
Is this just a setup for the upcoming Asylum film "2012: Ice Age"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxbiNWSNPTk
Now that made me laugh. How did that get past the editors?
It is time for the Carbonazis to accept reality. Three harsh winters in a row and the collapse of the carbon-credit market is nature's way of telling you that human-caused global warming was as real as Y2K and Killer bees.
How about "less than likely" rather than "more than unlikely"?
This whole line of reasoning seems plausible on the surface, until you actually do some research into it.
It's not a matter of optimal, it's a matter of what we're used to. Radical, rapid change in climate (such as we're already experiencing, and it'll get much worse) changes rainfall patterns and other factors that will force us to change where we build our cities, where we grow our food, etc. That kind of adjustment is incredibly expensive, much more expensive than taking reasonable mitigation steps now.
You want to move people out of areas that might be affected? OK, then start with the entire continental US, which is projected to experience severe drops in precipitation that will make the dustbowl look like a monsoon. And that's just one dimension of the probable impacts.
See this article, "Real adaptation is as politically tough as real mitigation, but much more expensive and not as effective in reducing future misery":
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/08/27/206596/adaptation-mitigation-climate-chang/
My site: Free Nature Pictures
That global warming (increased CO2 in the atmosphere greenhouse effect) could cause a new ice age. The melting of greenland and other arctic ice could upset the salinity of the north atlantic current and if that current stopped northern europe would freeze.
Do we actually know that global warming has been affected by our use of fossil fuels? No we don't, we have a great deal of evidence supporting that we do have some kind of effect though. If the current climate concerns turn out to not exist, have we wasted money trying to understand it? Absolutely not. We have tremendous evidence supporting that the earth has gone through some pretty crazy climate swings and even more exotic changes like polar direction variations and dramatic magnetic field fluctuations. We also know that very small shifts in temperature can produce huge shifts in ocean levels and weather patterns.
The earth's climate and specifically what effects it is something we need to understand. We need to be able to consciously alter our environment to produce the neccessary changes to maintain the conditions we require. If Human beings survive on this planet for more than a couple thousand years, The geological record shows that we are likely to experience something catastrophic. Be it an event like the Yellowstone caldera, temperature rises that melt the ice caps, or even an Meteorite, we must learn how to tailor our environment to suit us.
For this reason I just don't get anyone being critical of climate change research. Are the current concerns possibly not real? Ofcourse! But if you think this planet will continue to suit us well without our being able to actively alter it in the future, that is just plain naive.
I'm tired of seeing that stupid squirrel anyway.
Why can't we discuss the risk of a coming ice age without it having to be a refutation of an unstated argument about its impact on global warming? Can't we just discuss it on its own merits?
Sunspot activity has picked up and caught up with predictions. Here are some statistics taken from spaceweather.com: We did have a longer than usual minima period but there has never been any direct evidence to support a connection with the earths climate. In fact sunspots are cool spots, reducing the total incident energy striking the earth. I do not see how a lack of them can be interpreted to cause cooling.
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 0 days
2011 total: 1 day (1%)
2010 total: 51 days (14%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%)
Since 2004: 820 days
Typical Solar Min: 486 days
Updated 16 Jun 2011
(where do I send the $11.88 to avoid being modded down to the floor?)
From the Wikipedia entry on greenhouse effect:
This seems to be a hand waving rejection that increased cloud cover would reduce global temperatures. Since cloud formation can be initiated by con-trails, this seems to me a nontrival thing, but they reject it. If you look at the article on pan evaporation rates, they also downplay (ignore) the fact that sunlight is the primary driver of the evaporation rate - even though some of the references indicate that - and make it sound like a complex dependence on ground level atmospheric conditions. Hence global dimming isn't a real phenomenon.
Bottom line is that real data gets thrown out whenever a topic gets infected by politics.
The fact of the matter is that if every human on the planet paved one acre of their land, and killed all the plants in that area, it would only amount to less than 1% of the total land mass of the earth. And this would only be so for approximately 5 to 10 years, (nature always finds a way). So to think that humans have significantly affected the atmosphere in the last 100-150 years with greenhouse gases is ludicrous. Do the math, it's always right
21st Century Renaissance Man
So we don't know what effect sunspots have, but we're absolutely, positively, 100% confident that human caused global warming is happening and would counteract it anyway, because we've completely proven that's true.
Here's the thing, it's not that I don't believe it, because there is evidence _something_ is happening. It's that one, no matter what, the attitude of warmers is 'it can't be disproved.' The red light in my head for 'apply critical thinking here' is going off, but the minute I open my mouth to ask a question I'm berated.
In conclusion, I don't feel sorry for your cause and I'm buying a Ford Explorer on the way home. If supporters would change their attitude, maybe they'd win a few more. I'm completely turned off by the polarizing, cliquish, elitist, school-girl attitude.
"No we're not" != "unlikely"
More repetition of paid shill talking points!
I guess the 1000+ years of temperature data from the northern hemisphere isn't enough Before your reply think about the what the idiots call the little ice age (700-900AD)
science understanding -1/10
computer science understanding -1/10
putting your fingers in your ears and going LA LA LA I don't believe in facts 12/10
Cleaning the air of polluted area really IS a major issue. The thing is, this "Global Warming Hoax" as you say, might well make us forget the important bit, which is all the other types of pollutions (if only CO2 is a pollutant, which is currently the debate...). One of the major argument really is that we should focus on water supply and air quality, and waste management, which we aren't doing at all.
The real damage from "climate change" or whatever the leaders are calling it these days, is done.
We've already wasted so much effort on "carbon neutral" stupidity, that REAL environmental problems like gas fracking and artisanal gold mining have flown right under the radar.
That the people up at Hadley aren't much chops with Math or ComSci either if the leaks are anything to go by. Crap code done by people who are crap at Math doesn't inspire confidence in their models. Worse, similar code from other parts seem to "work" the same way.
Maybe they could "do the right thing" and get some folk who know Math and ComSci (modelling) on the case. Maybe then I'd give them some credibility. After all, it's not as though the current "wonder models" got the last 5-10 years anything like "tagged, bagged, understood" etc.
Maybe I'm getting more cynical, bitter, twisted and such because the older I get the more crap I see being passed off as conclusive science.
Especially when their computer models can not properly predict the past.
I just spent $100 on a jacket @ Burlington...BECAUSE I LIVE IN PUERTO RICO!!!
GET IT?!
(crickets chirping)
I've noticed that some people who want to reject CO2 as a cause of global warming seem to become very obsessed with the "Medieval Warm Period."
Thinking about it rationally, it is an odd obsession. After all, even if some other cause produced warming back during the medieval period, that does not disprove that CO2 could produce warming today. Indeed, it would make a rational person even more concerned about climate change. We know that CO2 can warm climate, but what if there is some other unknown cause other than CO2 that could warm the climate? Then we have to worry that the mysterious medieval warming factor could unexpectedly kick in on top of CO2 induced warming, causing temperatures to shoot up even higher than projected from models that only consider CO2 as a cause of warming during the next century or so. That could be a real disaster. So a rational person who believed in unexplained global warming during the medieval period should be even more anxious to stop the rise in CO2. Yet somehow, the Medieval Warmists always seem to end up concluding that CO2 is nothing to worry about it.
And then, why you look into it, you find out that the Medieval Warm Period is far less well clear than the Medieval Warmists seem to believe. After all, there were no thermometers back then, so estimates of the temperature back then are all based on indirect measures like tree rings and historical accounts of which plants were raised where, all of which are subject to huge uncertainty. And it becomes even more doubtful if you try to find evidence as to whether the medieval warming was just regional to those parts of the world were temperatures are strongly influenced by Atlantic ocean currents, or whether it was truly global. Yet the Medieval Warmists seem to regard the warmth of that period as more certain than the modern warming trend--which exceeds even the warmest medieval estimates, and is backed up by a huge number of different types of world-wide measurements. And if any new study suggests that medieval temperatures were a bit less than previously thought, the Medieval Warmists respond with outrage, insisting that "they" are trying to "erase" the Medieval warm period.
The models that predict such warming due to CO2 are ALL using an over estimation of the CO2 impact by likely a power of 2 or more.
The core of the models and impact estimation (multiplier effect) is based on a completely unsupported guess.
Any yet the money keeps flowing to these researchers.
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/climate-co2-sensitivity-overestimated
The numbers being cited all assume that climate scientists are using correct models for how strong a component solar forcing is in their models. There has been some compelling and peer-reviewed research in recent months that suggests most climate models vastly under-estimate the contribution of solar forcing to the climate (by up to 6x). If this is correct then the temperature changes resulting from reduced solar activity would be far greater than those that are currently being cited on this topic.
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/0004-6361/201016173&Itemid=129
The climate change debate has become somewhat absurd. Both sides ignore the fact that it is just plain good sense to refrain from squandering highly valuable natural resources that could benefit future generations.
The current state of affairs is akin to a man burning the dollar bills his children would otherwise inherit in order to heat his house, while at the same time refusing to wear clothes to keep himself warm.
This holds true whatever ones views are on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.
related: The quants on Wall Street have 100% faith in their models and the data they use. They maintain that 'the market acted perversely' and that 'it could never happen again'.
One of the founding fathers of quant finance warned them of 'black swans' and 'thick tail' behavior for years but they chose to ignore his wisdom. They still do... unpunished, unregulated and back to 'printing money" every day.
R.I.P. B Mandelbrot
Fuck Volcker, re-enact the whole god-damned Glassâ"Steagall_Act already!
Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
Glass-Steagall_Act
Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
Wikipedia isn't a scientific journal.
Ice ages have been happening for millions of years but the sun spot cycles have likely been going on for a billion years or more. The general belief is that shifts in the jet stream cause ice ages and that newly created mountain ranges made the pattern possible, new as in the last 30 million years. The triggers are the only thing that isn't clearly understood. The ocean currents are an obvious cause but something causes the shut down in the ocean conveyor. Cold water from the arctic is believed to cause the shut down but why did the glaciers melt? There seem to be multiple causes that trigger an ice age but it is a cycle that has been going on consistently for millions of years so to expect it to stop because it would negatively affect our lives is unrealistic. What are the odds of another ice age happening soon? A 100%. Soon as in some time in the next 10,000 years but by that I don't mean "in" 10,000 years it's as likely to start in the next 100 years and in fact we are due for one now.
2 words, Piers Morgan http://www.weatheraction.com/
Astrophysicist who actually makes money predicting weather days, weeks and even months in the future. Yes the sun *is* the main factor in climate. People riot in the streets over a hockey game, people get all excited over some dodgy science, because that is all that is on TV.
"Denialist" is a really interesting turn of phrase. People started intentionally using it against global warming skeptics to directly call to mind Holocaust deniers. Yeah - by calling people "denialists," you're really calling them "Nazis."
So yeah - keep using that word. It's a great cue to everyone who's not a True believer in AGW that you were never interested in the science part of the debate anyway. Everything in your post after your first word is, of course, wrong. Try reading some of the global warming skeptic sites instead of just Realclimate and the other AGW fansites.
Just as a hint: most of the AGW skeptic articles I read (as opposed to the imagined ones that exist only in your mind) just point out how BAD the science is on the pro-AGW theory side - and usually have better science to back them up.
They also treat people from the AGW side much, MUCH better than any of the people on your side usually manage in the comments sections. Here's a test for you: create a new account on Realclimate. Make a comment in favor of the skeptics - and not a dumb one, either, you can ask some very reasonable questions that they should be able to knock out of the park. Notice how fast your comment disappears from the discussion...
A real quant is supposed to be a mathematician, and they should not have much faith in the models most "quants" use on Wallstreet. PS. It wasn't their fault that the economy collapsed. It was the bankers, sub-prime mortgage holders, and large financial firms. Quants give advice and trade small amounts of capital in comparison to the big boys. They don't get to manipulate markets and come up with scams like the big boys do.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
You're a very poor proponent for your cause. You find people on the other side, and then write posts that make them seem better in comparison; it's happened several times in this thread.
Your side would be better served if you let a better writer respond, someone with a less insulting and juvenile style, and more able to calmly and clearly give facts.
The reason why there is a violent difference of opinion is more than wishful thinking and groupthink. It is that these qualities cause data to be distorted by "believers" in both camps. A simple illustration. Do a web search on Global Warming and collect "data" about recent ice at the poles. Then do a search on Global Cooling and search for the same data. Both streams of responses will contain recognized scientific authorities, both individual and institutional, providing different factual measurements. The ice on Antarctica is now larger than in the last decade according to some sources that provide photos and measurements. Other sites show different pictures from the same time span and claim it is shrinking. What this has done to me, and presumably many others IMHO, is deprive us of honest evidence. "Spinning" scientific data is neither science nor data. It becomes only "Spin." Science, and humanity are made poorer by quasi-scientific Spin of people who want to get your mortgage loans....oops, I mean obtain research dollars for popular subjects.
No matter how much you hammer away at the narrative, it's still not true. /.ers....
Here is the truth: Any warming of this globe is caused by and only by the SUN. Also, speaking in a purely logical fashion; solar activity cannot cool the earth. The original post, if you read it carefully, did not mention a lack of solar activity, just a calming in sunspots. The post was extremely carefully written, well designed drivel designed only to keep up the drumbeat of: AGW, AGW, AGW. Don't let yourselves be led around,