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.

11 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. Ironic by MagickalMyst · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Ironic by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At least you had the good graces not to attach a name to the fallacies, inaccuracies and outright lies you just posted.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  2. Nothing to see here, move along... by rickb928 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And focus on the global warming. Exclusively. Without deviation.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:Nothing to see here, move along... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And focus on the global warming. Exclusively. Without deviation.

      And give us your money. Now. Without fail. Only we can save you from global warming. And no, you can't question it.

    2. Re:Nothing to see here, move along... by plazman30 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Nothing to see here, move along... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny how the reporting of an ice free northwest passage, no glaciers by some date long since past, no more snow in Britain, etc, are never mocked by the alarmists.

    4. Re:Nothing to see here, move along... by radtea · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

      Agreed: if this work was identical in every respect but said nothing about climate, no one would pay any attention to it. Instead, it "must be false" because it has been used by Denialists (somehow... it isn't clear to me how, but Denialists are insane so I guess it doesn't have to be).

      My favorite response to this story from Warmists has been statements along the lines of, "The Little Ice Age was local to Europe and in any case caused by volcanic eruptions" (which result in global cooling.) It's a bit like the old Russian joke about "It was a long time ago and in any case it never happened."

      It is possible but quite tricky to reconcile the claims that the Little Ice Age was both local and caused by volcanoes, but the people putting forward these arguments don't even try. They just spout whatever contradiction sustains their faith.

      This is not to say AGW isn't real and doesn't deserve a significant policy response, including rapid building of modern nuclear plants to replace base-load coal, shifting of taxes from income to carbon emissions, and public money spent to support solar, storage and smarter grids. But many people who "believe in global warming" have decoupled themselves from the science, such that almost anything that happens will be spun in support of their beliefs.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    5. Re:Nothing to see here, move along... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was active on Slashdot early on, and then recently came back. Can someone tell me what the hell happened to this site? Was there a specific event that made all of the smart people leave, or was it gradual? Or did some event cause thousands of idiots to start posting here?

      Because this thread is amazing. It makes the comments at the bottom of a Fox News article seem rational and intelligent.

  3. Interesting study by riverat1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  4. That's a lot of heating for single-digit C change by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  5. Re:Relevant scientific links at NCAR by Lserevi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, a peer-reviewed scientific paper about the effects of a Maunder Minimum is, in your opinion, less credible than an un-peer-reviewed popular article. Interesting.