Slashdot Mirror
Mini Ice Age: Nothing To Worry About
Geoffrey.landis writes: Last week a news story suggested that a new model of sunspot activity predicted a dramatic drop in solar activity coming up, possibly resulting in coming a mini-ice age. Take that prediction with a bit of skepticism, though-- later news analysis suggests that the story may be more media hype than science. Valentina Zharkova, the scientist whose research is being quoted, made no mention of a "mini Ice age"-- her work was only on modelling the solar dynamo. And, in any case, the solar minimum predicted was estimated to last only three solar cycles-- far less than the 17th century Maunder Minimum.
Phil Plait, known for his "bad astronomy" column, does a more detailed analysis of the claims, pointing out that the effect, if it even exists at all, is weak-- and the much discussed "Little Ice Age" is currently believed to most likely have been triggered by volcanic action, not sunspots. And, in any case, any predicted cooling is small compared to already-present global warming. So, probably no need to stock up on firewood, dried food, and ammunition quite yet-- the mini ice age isn't likely to be coming quite yet.
Phil Plait, known for his "bad astronomy" column, does a more detailed analysis of the claims, pointing out that the effect, if it even exists at all, is weak-- and the much discussed "Little Ice Age" is currently believed to most likely have been triggered by volcanic action, not sunspots. And, in any case, any predicted cooling is small compared to already-present global warming. So, probably no need to stock up on firewood, dried food, and ammunition quite yet-- the mini ice age isn't likely to be coming quite yet.
An "ice age" in the age of "global warming".
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
Where I live it's a 30 year summer temperature record currently
And focus on the global warming. Exclusively. Without deviation.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
what's the point of talking about it at all if it's literally of no consequence to anyone's lives?
Do they mean like 'climate change'? Sorry - I meant to stay 'Catastrophic man-made global warming', but they don't want to use the term WARMING any more... I wonder why...
www.wattsupwiththat.com
www.climatedepot.com
I was hoping the solar minimum would give us a little breathing room to get CO2 emissions under control before we cook the planet.
I read the internet for the articles.
And I see timothy still hasn't bothered to correct his idiotic headline.
http://science.slashdot.org/st...
Timothy's headline:
"Double-Dynamo Model Predicts 60% Fall In Solar Output In The 2030s"
Actual headline:
"Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to 'mini ice age' levels: Sun driven by double dynamo"
After thinking about it for a few days I find Dr. Zharkova's double dynamo hypothesis interesting. Time and more study will tell if it holds up or not.
What I find amusing is all the breathless hype over a mini ice age. If if Dr. Zharkova's study is right and we do enter a Maunder Minimum-like period on the Sun we're talking about a reduction in insolation of at most about 0.2%, much less than the added forcing from the increase in CO2. At best it holds off some warming for a few years and that all goes away once the Sun returns to a more normal pattern.
That's easy. A few well placed h-bombs, perhaps in conjunction with some volcanoes, and we can put a nice sun-shield up into our atmosphere.
If man can affect global climate change, it can work both ways. What have we got to lose?
If it's been 400 years since the Maunder Minimum, and assuming we peak on temperature right now, wouldn't that mean the new minimum is still a problem for our [great-]+grandchildren?
The Little Ice Age followed immediately after the Medieval Warm Period. Just because it is warm doesn't mean it can't get cold.
an Alaskan winter is going to feel more like Death Valley does today.
I figured out the story was false from slashdot comments. Believe it or not.
One can point to volcanism as affecting climate, but don't be too quick to rule out any influence of solar activity on volcanism (or earthquakes). While we can't predict either location or severity of any influence from solar-driven geomagnetic activity or atmospheric shocks, that's not the same as saying there isn't any. Also, remember that there's more to solar events than flares and related CMEs. Filament eruptions, and high speed solar wind streams from coronal holes are not uncommon, and a higher percentage of those have effects that reach us. Coronal holes often persist for numerous rotations. Additionally, the leading edge of an arriving high-speed stream is often ia so-called co-rotating interaction region where wind density increases due to the slower wind particles piling up on the face of the arriving fast stream. Also, relatively small CMEs occurring near coronal holes are more apt to be carried along since there is outward magnetic flux
The biggest problem I see with analysis of solar influence is that people are calling low sunspot counts "low solar activity". Variations in the energy output from the sun are small. A more insightful analysis should look at changes in the density, speed, and distribution of the solar wind.
Variations in extreme UV and X-ray output are larger, with most of that energy soaked up by the upper atmosphere. That, and the charged particles of the solar wind certainly do affect the jet stream and what happens in the upper atmosphere. And the role of solar wind in influencing atmospheric electricity and the conditions behind thunderstorms certainly needs more study and modelling.
Beware of simplistic views that treat solar variations as nothing more than small changes in heat/light. It's not that simple.
Due to the tilt of the Earth and it's field, the Earth field influence on the way solar wind approaches Earth varies. The Earth field is also declining. Studies of other planets may help us better understand how the influence of solar wind will change as our field declines and shifts.
It is best to approach this with an open mind. Otherwise it's like a political debate where views are thrown about based more on agendas than on understanding.
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/06/17/are-we-headed-for-a-new-ice-age/#.Vaarjl8i01J
> 2011/06/17
imagine that
It's easy if you try
The National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO has this to say about a new Maunder Minimum: https://www.google.com/url?q=h... or, for the more scientifically literate: http://opensky.library.ucar.ed... The original hype would, therefore, appear to be pseudo-science.
The science is settled. There will be a mini ice age. Anyone of the other opinion should be thrown in jail.
No! Impossible!
This gives the Global Warming folks another "out" when their models are still failing in 2030
Much less to any actual research
This is OLD NEWS people
honestly, OLLLDDD news
as in FIVE YEARS OLD and has already been figured into the equations for AGW, which is real, and is getting worse.
"Zharkova herself did not help matters when she hesitantly answered, "Yes, indeed" when asked during a July 13 interview with Radio New Zealand whether she was "saying we've got 15 years before there's an ice age?" Zharkova, who is a professor of mathematics at Northumbria University in England, clarified later in the interview that she doesn't "do atmospheric research" and "can't say for sure" ...."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2...
But, but... what about The Day After Tomorrow?
In the summary Geoffrey.landis writes:
Phil Plait, known for his "bad astronomy" column, does a more detailed analysis of the claims,
I also find it ironic that, according to the Slashdot summary, Plait allegedly wrote, four years ago, a "detailed analysis" of last week's report (of a new solar model with a 97% match to the sun's actual behavior).
In the referenced article, Plait was deconstructing a previous report suggesting maybe the next solar cycle might be low, on the basis of extrapolations of the diclines seen in its two predecessors. He was not discussing the new model, which predicts, with substantial confidence, that (at least) the next TWO solar cycles would be almost nonexistent, comparable to the first two of Maunder Minimum's five nearly-missing cycles.
I also find it ironic that nobody else (that I've noticed) has commented on this yet.
If we're going to discuss this, let's at least have a reference to an authoritative article that is ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT the model under discussion and the fallout if its predictions are accurate. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
What they say is that the short-term solar cycles have no effect on the climate.
"Little Substantial Effect" of the ups and downs of the individual cycles themselves and their usual cycle-to-cycle variations (rather than the exceptional cases of multi-cycle sunspot minimums), if I'm not mistaken.
If the Maunder Minimum (about five cycles long) was responsible, or even a substantial contributer to, the Little Ice Age, the effect of that variation Was substantial. It's the largest of three sunspot minima events that have been observed since sunspots were first noted as a significant phenomenon of scientific interest, and each of the minima was accompanied by a substantial worldwide cold snap. So let's not claim the scientists are dismissing it out-of-hand.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Once climate change really kicks in ... an Alaskan winter is going to feel more like Death Valley does today.
Really? I though even the worst models were only predicting single-digit C changes to temperature averages.
You're talking well over an order of magnitude more warming that the doom-and-gloom crowd. They're talking the ideal ranges of various crops moving a couple hundred miles toward the poles or a couple hundred feet upslope (even when trying to spin it into extinction events). You're talking frying eggs on the ground in the dead of the Alaskan winter. They're not comparable.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I'm a little concerned. Not necessarily about Climate Change or a Little Ice Age. But that the article poster, samzenpus, is suggesting that we ignore recent claims for a mini ice age and then disturbingly proceeds to downplay the impact of a mini ice age.
I know the media gets things wrong all the time. Aside from misleading media reports, I believe science should be open minded. Except under rare circumstances, the media should not be driving or even influencing scientific studies.
Many so-called logical people often fall into the same traps they accuse skeptics as falling into. Stay the scientific course. I've read several reports regarding decreasing solar activity and a possible mini ice age. I think it's fascinating. Whether or not to what effect solar activity plays in our climate would be interesting to monitor. Either way, we will be learning something.
I hope that makes sense. In short, stop pointing fingers and making impossible assumptions and get back to the scientific method.
If you don't like the conclusion, throw out the data.
So on one hand we have right-wing and tabloid outlets shouting "New Mini Ice Age", and on the other hand we have leftwing sites saying "No Possible Solar Changes Can Influence Climate" and referencing papers that are years old and don't even know of the new theory. How about going to the source? Interview with the scientists directly yesterday: http://www.iflscience.com/envi... Link to the paper being talked about: http://iopscience.iop.org/0004... She's an astrophysicist and seems pretty sure temps will be dropping due to noticeable solar activity drops. “During the minimum, the intensity of solar radiation will be reduced dramatically. So we will have less heat coming into the atmosphere, which will reduce the temperature.” Now we need some climate scientists to look at the new theories and new proposed solar activity levels and say how that will affect the AGW models.
Nice catch! The article: Are we headed for a new ice age? By Phil Plait | June 17, 2011
Unless Phil Plait is a time traveler then he didn't address this new model's predictions 4 years ago.
I guess Game of Thrones had it right all along.
You sound like a typical denier. Just wait.
I rarely post. I get mod points about every other week. You get it for just using the site.
Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
True and Zharkova's double dynamo hypothesis doesn't have anything to say on climate change or a mini ice age, just that there may be lowered solar activity for a while. How such low solar activity affects climate has been examined before and what they found was it would only slow global warming down a bit but not stop it. RealClimate had a post on it in 2011.
Time to trot out the old "correlation isn't causation" meme. It could be a coincidence the the Dalton Minimum was at the same time or the DM could be a partial explanation. Remember that Mt. Tambora and the "Year without a summer" occurred during the DM.
Phil Plait addresses this very question in a series of articles that he wrote in 1732.
"... suggests that the story may be more media hype than science"
You mean like Climate Change (TM)?
... as in FIVE YEARS OLD and has already been figured into the equations for AGW, which is real, and is getting worse.
Get a grip.
It doesn't matter whether the Global Warming is Anthropogenic or not (other than to tell us that, if anything needs to be done about it, anthropogenesis says we CAN affect it because we already DID).
What matters is where it's going, whether the destination is disastrous, annoying, ho-hum, or maybe even good, whether it will sort itself without help, and if not, how much and how we need to intervene to make things better than if we don't bother.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It is technically possible for one of two things to occur that would create a mini ice age, even if those pushing this are really anti-science global warming deniers.
1. The Alaska to Northern California subduction zone "jumps", triggering massive tsunamis and setting off nearby earthquake unzipping along the Alaska, BC, Washington, Oregon, and Northern California linked fault lines, which could (but most likely would not) cause some of the active volcanoes near this line (like Mount Hood, Mount Rainier, and so on) to activate in full eruption. The resulting atmospheric emissions would cause a mini ice age similar to that during the last mini ice age (also called the Dark Ages).
2. Yellowstone could erupt. If that happens, you have a lot more to worry about, other than the mini ice age that would certainly occur.
That said, those pushing this are really just anti-science global warming deniers, desperate for continuing government subsidies for their dying fossil fuel industries.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Global Average Temperatures. Local averages can vary more dramatically.
Sorry-- Phil Plait wrote a detailed analysis of the claims that decreases solar activity means that the Earth is likely to slip into a mini ice age.
The new model of the solar dynamo is new, but doesn't mention a "mini ice age". The part Plait analysed is not new.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Nope, what you propose doesn't matter either. Matter of fact, it all sounds like arguing about which side of the stable to shovel out first.
2012 Sierra club said it wouldnt happen:
http://blogs.sierraclub.org/co...
Same Phil person provided that logic back then. so this is his word against all of science.
I think nature is going to win in the end. Einstein was ridiculed for the first 6 months after his bombshells which have yet to be disproven ;)
So Why is Slashdot acting as the voice for this lone activist and saying he is an authority or expert is really like going through the filo of Sierra Club members to find out if someone can try and create a wedge issue out of this 330 year body of evidence to gate keep "the science" from reality.
Why is the sierra club and it's members treated like authority when they are just a hobby organisation with alot of rich members? With a history of terrorism from the 70's and 80's is anybodys guess.
Well, if the researcher didn't use "little ice age" then who did? Surely it couldn't be the media -- they always and only report the true facts. Who, who, who could it have been?
all climatologist admit that, and this in addition to existing error bars. This is why climatology is a science , because if it finds a better way to model, it drops the old model and take a new one. That is why we can speak of prior model: because better one came up.
No sorry indeed it does. Opinion are WORTHLESS sorry for the caps emphasis but it needs to be told. If you have a concurrent model which better model the data make a paper. Then we can talk. But opinion have no say in a science discussion. You may as well speaks about the opinion of 40+% of the american which have the opinion the theory of natural selection is bunk. That is why opinion are not worth anything whatsoever, and what claims can be advanced without evidence (deniers opinion) can be dismissed without hassle.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
>I also find it ironic that nobody else (that I've noticed) has commented on this yet.
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7696021&cid=50118735
I beat you to it by 37 minutes, but I'm just glad that *someone* got modded up for saying this.
Thanks for sharing just how little you know of this subject. It really helps those who are trying to have a decent discussion when you out yourself as not only not understanding the findings, but completely disinterested in doing so. Good jerb!
Then read the IPCC reports, and your ignorance will be cured. You seem to be acting like no-one's bothered to figure this stuff out, when it appears it's just you being massively ignorant of an entire field of study, then using your ignorance as evidence of why it should be trashed. Brilliant stuff.
I have absolutely no idea how any of these models make predictions with any confidence whatsoever. They're always wrong and the model of the next cycle is always changed to fit the past one. The truth is that this kind of curve fitting exercise has zero skill and given the complete lack of any actual physical theory, it's not entirely clear how any model is supposed to fit, except by chance of course. His prediction may be accurate but a stopped clock is also very accurate (twice a day). You only have to look at the NASA predictions for each solar cycle to see how laughably off they are.
Of course compared to climate science, solar physicists have amazingly accurate models, which tells you all you need to know about AGW predictions for year 2100.
Your post is yet another sad example of a classic Slashdot genre: "Scientists unsure if Sun exists".
It's pretty well accepted that solar output affects climate.
Play Command HQ online
Nice catch! The article: Are we headed for a new ice age? By Phil Plait | June 17, 2011
Unless Phil Plait is a time traveler then he didn't address this new model's predictions 4 years ago.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/07/14/global_cooling_no_were_not_headed_for_a_mini_ice_age.html
No, We’re Not Headed for a Mini–Ice Age
By Phil Plait - July 14 2015 7:00 AM
...The funny thing is, I debunked this Sun-influenced cooling idea back in 2011! [link to the article you talk about]
Gee, maybe somebody accidently linked to the old debunking instead of the new one.