Slashdot Mirror
Solar Lull Could Cause Colder Winters In Europe
Taco Cowboy writes "Since September of last year scientists have been wondering what's happening to the Sun. It's supposed to have reached the peak of its 11-year cycle, but sunspot and flare activity remains much quieter than expected. Experts now think the recent cold snap that hit North America and the wet weather that hit part of Europe might be linked to the eerie quietness of the Sun. According to the BBC, solar activity hasn't been this low in 100 years, and if activity keeps dropping, it may reach levels seen during the 'Maunder Minimum,' an 'era of solar inactivity in the 17th Century [which] coincided with a period of bitterly cold winters in Europe.' It wouldn't have a big effect on global temperatures, just regional ones. Why? The sun's UV output drops during these lulls, and the decreased amount of UV light hitting the stratosphere would cause the jet stream to change course. Prof. Mike Lockwood says, 'These are large meanders in the jet stream, and they're called blocking events because they block off the normal moist, mild winds we get from the Atlantic, and instead we get cold air being dragged down from the Arctic and from Russia. These are what we call a cold snap... a series of three or four cold snaps in a row adds up to a cold winter. And that's quite likely what we'll see as solar activity declines.'"
Can we just save everyone a lot of keyboard smashing a skip the tired debate this time?
-Yes, this is egg on the face of Human Induced Climate Change(HICC).
-No, this is not going to convince the people banning incandescent light bulbs that there is contention surrounding the "prevailing science".
-No, I don't need a refresher on the difference between "climate" & "weather".
For all the time and energy people spend trying to prove or disprove an un-disprovable hypothetis(that humans are causing the problem) we could make a lot of headway towards minimizing the impact of the solar cycle on our weather/climate by reducing CO2 emmisions.
Just a thought... On the other hand, I'm sure there are plenty of people left who haven't heard the same talking points a million times before.
The next ice age is going to come eventually. We aren't that far away from the point when its supposed to happen again. In fact some people claim we would already be experiencing its effect it it wasn't for the elevated CO2 and higher than usual solar activity in the last decade. Now that the Sun is abnormally inactive, which is something which may be indicative of an ice age, since the causes phenomenon are not completely well defined, we shall see.
When Al Gore bought real estate in NY which was close to sea level, that was enough to tell you that even he doesn't believe the crap he spouts.
you're afraid of your political opponents gaining power
Well, sure. Who wants a bunch of statist central command types running their lives? Tax-ravenous Nanny Staters are bad news. Why should we want them to get any more power than they've already got? They've latched onto climate alarmism as their latest propaganda tool, and it's perfectly delightful when they are deprived of easy, distracting sound bite fodder. Half their fun already ended when they had to switch from "global warming" to "climate change," and this just makes it a little harder for them to spew their usual lines. That's just great.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
His line of questioning is irrelevant
I guess you don't need to refute your opponent if you ignore what they say. Brilliant!
because he's laboring under the clearly unspoken assumption
Once again, brilliant! You have convicted him of the crime of saying something which he didn't actually say ("clearly unspoken").
that if something else caused warming in the past, CO2 cannot be causing it today.
My hat's off to you, sir, the winner of the day. That congressman's whole point was obviously this hobby horse of yours, even though he somehow neglected to ever mention it or even remotely allude to it.
Somehow I listened to the same thing, and thought the congressman was merely raising doubts, not confidently asserting against AGW.