Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
Scientists predict 'mini ice age' will hit in 15 years
Topic Started: Jul 13 2015, 06:19 PM (1,612 Views)
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop

Apparently some people think the sun has an influence on the climate.

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/12/scientists-predict-mini-ice-age-will-hit-in-15-years/21208356/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl7|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D-1115257387?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058&

Quote:
 

Scientists predict 'mini ice age' will hit in 15 years

Scientists warn that the Earth is just 15 years away from experiencing a "mini ice age" — something that hasn't happened in 300 years.


Researchers in the U.K. created a new model of the Sun's solar cycles that allows them to make extremely accurate predictions of changes in solar activity like never before.


Solar cycles typically last 11 years and during that time, the north and south magnetic poles flip. It looks a lot like a heartbeat when graphed out. We're currently in Cycle 24.

The solar scientists say that the latest model shows the Sun's magnetic waves will become offset in Cycle 25 which peaks in 2022. Then, in Cycle 26, solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during between 2030 and 2040 causing this "mini ice age".
Professor Valentina Zharkova, who presented the findings at the National Astronomy Meeted in Wales, said, "In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other."

So what does that mean for us? Pretty much what you'd expect.

Bitter cold winters — cold enough to freeze River Thames in England, which is exactly what happened when the last "mini ice age" hit between 1645 and 1715.


The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
http://s10.zetaboards.com/The_New_Coffee_Room/topic/7542817/1/?x=20#new
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 
Apparently some people think the sun has an influence on the climate.

As far as our best understanding goes the current warming trend is not explained by variation in solar output alone. That doesn't mean, (nor has mainstream climatology ever claimed) that solar variance has no influence on the climate.

The research in question does not predict a mini ice age. It predicts that solar activity will fall to the level that was last seen during the 1645-1715 mini ice age. That constitutes a very different claim.

Why does that constitute a different claim? Well the information I'm about to provide isn't very widespread so bear with me. It might just blow your mind.

In addition to the climate being influence by solar activity it turns out that there are these gaseous species in the atmosphere that alter how much solar radiation is reflected from the earth and how much gets absorbed and subsequently leads to changes in average temperature. Increases in the atmospheric concentration of these so called "greenhouse" gasses mean that the environment we have today is a very different one from the environment of 1645. In fact there was a paper in 2012 predicting that we would see a reduction of 0.13 degrees C were levels of solar radiation to fall to those seen in the previous mini ice age. This fall in temperature would be temporary as following the 15 year low solar activity would again begin to rise and even during this temporary period the 0.13 degrees C is not enough to off set the predicted increase in temperature due to rises in the concentration of the "greenhouse" gases. (Current predictions of a 1-3 degrees increase over the next 50 years vs. temporary 0.13 degree decrease over 15 years). This was explicitly stated by one of the authors of the aforementioned paper quoted in a phys.org article as saying:

Quote:
 
Our findings suggest that a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases on global temperatures in the 21st century

And reiterated in a 2015 Nature paper:
Quote:
 
“any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Again, arguing true or not gets us nowhere, when I don't think anyone believes it is a good idea to go on increasing CO2 emissions.

I'm actually looking at a solar array for my home. It is starting to be a good financial decision. When it consistently is will be the primary solution for emissions, provided we can manufacture enough durable cells and storage technology.
Edited by Mikhailoh, Jul 14 2015, 05:08 AM.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Mikhailoh
Jul 14 2015, 05:07 AM
Again, arguing true or not gets us nowhere
Well, with that kind of defeatist attitude we might as well close the sodding place down right now.

My God, man, have you learnt NOTHING??????
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
John D'Oh
Jul 14 2015, 05:09 AM
learnt
How long have you been in this fine country?

Time to use the proper form of the past participle.
Quote:
 
Learned is the more common past tense and past participle of the verb learn. Learnt is a variant especially common outside North America. In British writing, for instance, it appears about once for every three instances of learned. In the U.S. and Canada, meanwhile, learnt appears only once for approximately every 500 instances of learned, and it’s generally considered colloquial.

Writers throughout the English-speaking world use learned as the adjective meaning possessing broad, profound knowledge. Incidentally, this sense of learned is pronounced with two syllables: LUR-ned.¯ As a verb and in normal past-participial use, learned is one syllable.


American Usage chart.

British Usage Chart.

The science is settled.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 
Again, arguing true or not gets us nowhere, when I don't think anyone believes it is a good idea to go on increasing CO2 emission


Politically significant numbers of people in countries that produce large quantities of CO2 are opposed to measures to prevent further rises in CO2 because they think the short term reduction in economic growth matters more. They make this argument by claiming that anthropogenic mediated climate change is false.

If all you think of CO2 is that it's plant food why would you support the fairly drastic changes needed to prevent the large predicted increases in global average temperatures occurring over the next 50 years?

Maybe it doesn't matter because we've already lost - the political decision to block global action in the late 90s early 2000s mean the game is basically up. That seems to be the impression given by scientists at the recent climate symposium I went to. I guess fingers crossed that we're missing something really big that offsets a large portion of the predicted rise.

Or maybe we say **** it we're going to all download into some matrix like computer existence over the next hundred years anyway and when we're there we'll take the biosphere with us. Digitised, the information it contains will be much more maintainable and robust to perturbations in the chemical composition of the Earth anyway
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Quote:
 
How long have you been in this fine country?


How interesting that whilst you were happy to generate some coloured graphs in order to categorise the difference between my mother tongue and a defence of your pidgin dialect, you didn't question my use of the word 'sodding'.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Let's look at the positive side of large increases in global average temperatures.

The assumption that it is all bad feeds the media monster but ignores reality.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 
The assumption that it is all bad feeds the media monster but ignores reality.

Perhaps there is truth to that. But some of the negatives look pretty bad - do you see many climate change positives for people living in Bangladesh?
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Sure, they will rise to the challenge, overcome the difficulties, take advantage of the positives and go on to dominate coping with heat in the 22nd century.

They are humans they will evolve they have no other choice.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
People don't evolve. They live to reproduce, or they don't.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
If all you think of CO2 is that it's plant food why would you support the fairly drastic changes needed to prevent the large predicted increases in global average temperatures occurring over the next 50 years?

Maybe it doesn't matter because we've already lost - the political decision to block global action in the late 90s early 2000s mean the game is basically up. That seems to be the impression given by scientists at the recent climate symposium I went to. I guess fingers crossed that we're missing something really big that offsets a large portion of the predicted rise.



Good grief.....

1. CO2 levels have been many times higher in the past than it is now.
2. There has been no warming in at least a couple of decades.
3. There's a FREAKING ICE AGE coming.

and you're still arguing that the planet is warming....

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
It's a religion.

When in a thread whose topic is the fact that the most recent data shows there's an ice age coming, it gets turned around into another discussion of "man made global warming".....

it's a religion.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 
Sure, they will rise to the challenge, overcome the difficulties, take advantage of the positives and go on to dominate coping with heat in the 22nd century.

According to wiki at present 50% of Bangladeshi children are currently malnurished and 30% of their total population are malnurished. Half the population is in poverty with a purchasing power of $1.25 per person a day.

Climate change is predicted to bring a loss of 50% of their rainfed agriculture along with significant reductions in the food supply of neighbouring regions. It also predicts significant rises in water scarcity. (as per the previous link to the effects of climate change on Bangladesh)
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 
Good grief.....
3. There's a FREAKING ICE AGE coming.

According to whom?

Quote:
 
When in a thread whose topic is the fact that the most recent data shows there's an ice age coming,

What data shows that? Did you read my first post in this thread?
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
I like what the comedian Sam Kennison said regarding the starving people in Bangladesh..


"YOU LIVE IN A F*CKING DESERT!! MOVE TO WHERE THE FOOD IS!!!"

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Moonbat
Jul 14 2015, 06:28 AM
Quote:
 
Good grief.....
3. There's a FREAKING ICE AGE coming.


According to whom?
According to the latest peer reviewed science. You were given a link to the information.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 
According to the latest peer reviewed science. You were given a link to the information.


Yes I read it and that's not what it says as I explained above with further links to several relevant papers.

Do you notice that you like to quote science when you think it agrees with you (even if it requires misquoting it) but you like to ignore science when it disagrees with you? Do you think that's strange?
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Well yes, that IS what it says.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Do you notice that you like to quote science when you think it agrees with you (even if it requires misquoting it) but you like to ignore science when it disagrees with you? Do you think that's strange?


Actually, that's exactly what you've done by pulling up older data in your attempt to dismiss the most recent data that proves your data wrong.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
even if it requires misquoting it



"Royal Astronomical Society (RAS). "Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to 'mini ice age' levels"

"A new model of the Sun's solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun's 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645."

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 
Well yes, that IS what it says


It says is this:

Quote:
 
ooking ahead to the next solar cycles, the model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

“In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum’,” said Zharkova. “Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity. When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago


http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2680-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo

Valentina Zharkova has a model for change in solar activity. That model predicts that solar activity will fall to what it was during the last mini ice age. They are not predicting a mini ice age they are predicting that the solar activity will be what is was during the last mini ice age.

Do you understand what I'm telling you?
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
I understand that that's the only way you can interpret it without having your religion exposed for the fraud that it is, yes.

But to anyone thinking rationally, every time there's been a Maunder Minimum there has been an ice age, it's fairly obvious that that's what will happen this time.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
jon-nyc
Jul 14 2015, 06:13 AM
People don't evolve. They live to reproduce, or they don't.
The president evolved.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4