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.
What climate scientists are saying is not that the Sun has no effect but that there is not enough variability in the Sun to account for the changes we've seen. The incoming energy from the Sun's radiation is of course critical to the Earth's climate. The variability of the Sun from a Maunder Minimum condition to the maximum output we've see is on the order of 0.2% which is less than the forcing of the added CO2 in the atmosphere.
And based on what astronomy knows about G-type main sequence stars there's no reason to expect a drastic increase in the variability of the Sun.
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.
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