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.
The Little Ice Age followed immediately after the Medieval Warm Period. Just because it is warm doesn't mean it can't get cold.
I was taught that the naming of Greenland vs Iceland was a contrivance to increase immigration to that particular (less desirable) landmass. A quick google search indicates this is the case and is recorded that way in the Icelandic sagas.
I would just like climatologists to admit that most of their prior models have had their faults and this one may as well. It's currently the best theory, but that doesn't give us the right to jump down everyone's throat that has a differing opinion.
Thinking like that is what got us into the obesity crisis in this country. Problem is, unlike the obesity crisis, we don't have 40 years to learn we were wrong.
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
[sarcasm]He probably is in front of several computer screens with several separate slashdot accounts available. He saves up mod points on those separate accounts and mods up his own posts [/sarcasm] I am being somewhat sarcastic here, but really, I cannot figure out how on earth mods would mark his post as insightful. As another poster responded, it is a series of fallacies, inaccuracies and outright lies.
Seriously though. I'm not familiar with how the mod points system works here, but it seems that I get points eventually when one of my posts gets modded up. Superficially, it seems that if I get 4 mods up (to 5) I get 5 points. That would be an increase of one point overall. To someone who knows, is it possible to have a series of accounts working in conjunction, modding each others posts up? What safeguards are in place to prevent this? Because it seems to me as a pseudo-outsider, that if 4 mods up makes five points, then if you kept your points for modding up posts within your group, that you would net-increase your points within the group. Am I wrong here?
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
An "ice age" in the age of "global warming".
Ironic that the "Little Ice Age" was triggered by enourmous quantities of CO2 emitted by volcanic erruptions.
No, actually, triggered by enormous quantities of volcanic ash and sulfate aerosols ejected into the atmosphere, reflecting sunlight and thus reducing the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface. This is a well-documented effect. Volcanoes, ironically, don't emit all that much carbon dioxide. That is, they emit a lot... but not compared to the cubic miles of coal we burn.
This is where I have an issue. ANY piece of science than, in any way, might somehow make someone question the global warming dogma is immediately attacked and discredited. As a former scientist, this is really scary.
Every scientific point of view deserves scrutiny. To immediately try to discredit people of differing opinions to stop the global warming money train is really scary.
Same thing happened back in the 90s, when the theory of dinosaurs evolving into birds surfaced. For a few years there, any opposing theory was mocked and laughed at.
If you were a real scientist then you wouldn't type that "money train" denialist bullshit.
Also, if you were real scientist then you would actually have a clue about what the research actually was. People aren't attacking the the double dynamo hypothesis proposed by the paper. They're attacking the outrageous stupidity by the media and science deniers saying that a predicted solar minimum event will result in a mini ice age.
If you passed third grade math class then you should be able to tell pretty quickly that the "mini-ice age" claim is 100% garbage. Even during the Maunder Minimum (which, if you read the paper, isn't what's predicted to happen) insolation changed by a whopping .2%. The forcing from additional greenhouse gases significantly exceeds that to the point where it will barely make a dent in the best case scenario (2C temperature increase).
~X~