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.
And focus on the global warming. Exclusively. Without deviation.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
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.
The Little Ice Age followed immediately after the Medieval Warm Period. Just because it is warm doesn't mean it can't get cold.
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.
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.
For a few hundred bucks, I can help you with that.
Required reading for internet skeptics
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
It's not very difficult; in fact, conservatives have already proposed lots of gay sex as the easiest solution.
Ezekiel 23:20
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
Scientists can only report their findings. They can't force anyone to do anything. But it isn't helpful to have a legion of fossil fuel astroturfers and paid shills attacking their integrity at every point, nor is it helpful to have these same legions overstating the uncertainty, and making it sound as if industrial emissions are somehow magically inert.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
No, they will claim that the hundreds of billions spent over the past 20 years have saved everyone (thanks to them). This despite the lack of warming for 2 decades while CO2 has increased.
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
The models aren't failing, though. Thanks for playing.
No change of plan: we cut CO2 emissions to zero, and if the next day a volcano triggers a mini ice age, we're gonna resurrect the oil industry and burn gasoline in the open to counter it. You can watch the flames from your electrical vehicle.
No worries. If we cut CO2 emissions to zero now, it will be centuries, maybe millennia before the CO2 level drops back to 280 again. So we are effectively ice age proof for the foreseeable future.
See, the glass is half full after all.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.