The next Ice age has been postponed, or not?

[sbunny8]

@watchwolf49

Of course they’re just guessing, we’re not very good guessing four days out, let alone 4,000 years out …

Yeah, I agree 100%! I don’t trust the TV weatherman, therefore I don’t trust climate scientists either.

In fact, the same thing goes for election polls. If they don’t know who I’m going to vote for; how could they possibly predict the winner of an election? And don’t get me started on so-called “population growth”. They can’t even tell a pregnant woman what time of day her baby will be born; how could anyone possibly predict whether the population will go up or down? Some stock broker convinced my cousin to buy shares in a company and their stock price went down. Now that same stock broker wants me to invest in mutual funds. Does he think I’m an idiot, or what?

</sarcasm>

Even if it were true that weather forecasts are inaccurate (actually, the truth is that they have a very good track record over time), that still wouldn’t have anything to do with whether it’s possible to predict what will happen to the average global temperature over time when you increase the levels of CO2.

[carnivorousplant]

@sbunny8

Yeah, I agree 100%! I don’t trust the TV weatherman, therefore I don’t trust climate scientists either.

Weather prediction is not a science.

It is a Black Art.

[watchwolf49]

@GIGObuster

We have to control our emissions and we will have to spend a bit in adaptation.

That’s exactly what we said in the 1970’s … word for word … global warming, global cooling; only a problem if the actual emission don’t kill us first. I say today it’s stupid to go forward “with few safety valves”.

@sbunny8

Yeah, I agree 100%! I don’t trust the TV weatherman …

Are you kidding me, that new Ford F-150 with four-wheel drive and snowplough attachment is what YOU need right NOW … because look how much it frickin’ snowed in Buffalo yesterday … it could snow here like that ANY DAY now.

I get my forecasts from the NWS (www.weather.gov), and here locally we regular get forecasts that state “the models are everyplace and bear no consensus, the stated forecast is the average weather for that date”. Simply stated, the skills to stand in front of a TV camera are taught in Journalism school, not Atmospheric Science school … they are completely different skill-sets. Have you ever heard a TV weatherman say he has no idea what the weather will be tomorrow?

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

That’s exactly what we said in the 1970’s … word for word … global warming, global cooling; only a problem if the actual emission don’t kill us first. I say today it’s stupid to go forward “with few safety valves”.

This is ignoring a lot, what took place is a lot of controls did happen to control aerosols, and then the warming due to CO2 came to dominate the temperature.

The reality is that once again, the issue that we are dealing here (solar activity) will not help us, so much about “safety valves”. The safest thing to do (and the most economical one too) is to deal with our emissions.

[watchwolf49]

@GIGObuster

This is ignoring a lot, what took place is a lot of controls did happen to control aerosols, and then the warming due to CO2 came to dominate the temperature.

The reality is that once again, the issue that we are dealing here (solar activity) will not help us, so much about “safety valves”. The safest thing to do (and the most economical one too) is to deal with our emissions.

We also retrofitted our buildings with insulation. Although the mgp numbers today are underwhelming, much is lost “controlling emissions” … I’m sure we all remember coming over the Grapevine in the 1970’s not being able to see LA because of the thick yeller haze. Smog controls on our vehicles generally wreak mpg, but better to risk death 100 years from now than die today.

BIG changes in solar activity will make for small changes in the rate of temperature increases, perhaps not even measurable. The coming glaciation is postponed indefinitely.

[Chronos]

Quoth watchwolf49:

Orbital mechanics is hard to understand. So many variations and considerations, but it’s there and it effects global temperatures directly.

Please tell me this is a joke. There’s no way anyone could possibly say this with a straight face, is there?

[watchwolf49]

Solar flux is proportional to the square of distance I believe.

[user_hostile]

You mean inversely proportional, right?

[GIGObuster]

Richard Alley explained the Milankovitch cycles (Orbital mechanics) and other solar activity with his head as a model.

The short history: It takes 40,000 for those orbital mechanics to increase the heath of the earth, "we know what it is doing right now" (the orbital mechanics) and it is not fast enough to explain what we are seeing." Those cycles are not working that fast and are not a factor on the current warming being observed.

Oh, and Dana Rohrbacher ® is a fink.

[watchwolf49]

@user_hostile

You mean inversely proportional, right?

D’oh … yeah … inversely proportional … thanx

@GIGObuster

Richard Alley explained the Milankovitch cycles (Orbital mechanics) and other solar activity with his head as a model.

“An Exceptionally Long Interglacial Ahead?” explains the 400 ky cycle the Earth’s eccentricity goes through, and how this can be used to explain the previous exceptional long interglacial. I bring this up to show that Milankovitch cycles are just one aspect of orbital mechanics, there’s a number of others … oscillations on oscillations on oscillations …

[GIGObuster]

Incidentally Zharkova may be correct about the solar dynamo, but the problem remains, there is no mechanism there that would override and reduce the currently observed warming caused by CO2 in the atmosphere.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=3050

Back from the dead

Recently there’s been a flood of media stories claiming that the sun may be headed towards a quiet phase (a possibility), which could send the Earth into a “deep freeze” (a virtual impossibility). These stories appear to have originated in the biased conservative media (like the Daily Mailand Telegraph) and seeped into other media outlets (like CNN). Some media outlets, like the Washington Post, did a good job researching the story and discovering its flaws before publishing.

The stories stemmed from a presentation at the Royal Astronomical Society’s National Astronomy Meeting in Wales by mathematician Valentina Zharkova. Her research (not yet published) suggests the sun could be headed for a quiet phase like the one that coincided with a period known as the “Little Ice Age,” but doesn’t say anything about how this solar minimum would impact the Earth’s climate.

Some of the fault for raising this zombie myth from the dead lies with the Royal Astronomical Society’s press release, which mentioned the previous mini ice age without making it clear that it was solar activity but not the Earth’s climate that was the subject of the study. Some of the fault lies with Zharkova, who made comments ‘skeptical’ of human-caused global warming that were not supported by her research.

And much of the fault lies with media oulets like the Daily Mail and Telegraph, which ran rather sensationalist stories about an impending mini ice age apparently without consulting a single climate scientist. It’s not a coincidence that the media outlets that didn’t contact climate scientists spread this myth, while the media outlets that did contact climate scientists debunked it.
An easy myth to debunk

This ‘impending mini ice age’ myth is incredibly easy to debunk. In fact it just takes asking one simple question – if the sun is such a key driver of the Earth’s climate, then why has the entire planet (air, oceans, land, and ice) warmed rapidly over the past 60 years while solar activity has declined?

Annual global surface temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue).

That simple question is sufficient on its own to debunk the notion that the sun is the main driver of global temperatures. Research has clearly shown, it’s carbon dioxide that’s the temperature’s main control knob.

Second, research has suggested that the solar minimum around the year 1650 played a relatively small role in the cool temperatures during the Little Ice Age. Instead, heightened volcanic activity (pumping ash into the atmosphere that blocks sunlight) and a drop in atmospheric carbon levels were the main contributors to the cooling during that time.

Third, the Little Ice Age wasn’t even that cold, globally. The following chart shows the most comprehensive global surface temperature reconstruction to date, from the PAGES 2k Consortium. In just the past few decades the planet has warmed more than it cooled during the entire Little Ice Age.

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

D’oh … yeah … inversely proportional … thanx

“An Exceptionally Long Interglacial Ahead?” explains the 400 ky cycle the Earth’s eccentricity goes through, and how this can be used to explain the previous exceptional long interglacial. I bring this up to show that Milankovitch cycles are just one aspect of orbital mechanics, there’s a number of others … oscillations on oscillations on oscillations …

And as usual whoever pointed at that paper ignored several conclusions and common understanding of what CO2 is doing to the temperature of the earth:

as a result of variations in Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Over the next 100,000 years, the amplitude of insolation variations will be small (see the figure), much smaller than during the Eemian. For example, at 65°N in June, insolation will vary by less than 25 Wm−2 ov er the next 25,000 years, compared with 110 Wm−2 between 125,000 and 115,000 years ago. From the standpoint of insolation, the Eemian can hardly be taken as an analog for the next millennia, as is often assumed.

…

Most CO2 scenarios (15) led to an exceptionally long interglacial from 5000 years before the present to 50,000 years from now (see the bottom panel of the figure), with the next glacial maximum in 100,000 years. Only for CO2 concentrations less than 220 ppmv was an early entrance into glaciation simulated (15). Such a long interglacial appears to have occurred only once in the last 500,000 years, at MIS-11 (2,3, 16). At this time, astronomical insolation and some proxy climate indicators were similar to those of today. The CO2 concentration was at an interglacial level [slightly above 280 ppmv (8)]. Simulations with these values (16) also show a particularly long interglacial, illustrating the importance of CO2 concentrations during periods when the amplitude of insolation variation is too small to drive the climate system.

The present-day CO2 concentration of 370 ppmv is already well above typical interglacial values of
290 ppmv. Taking into account anthropogenic perturbations, we have studied further in which the CO2 concentration increases to up to 750 ppmv over the next 200 years, returning to natural levels by 1000 years from now (13, 15). The results suggest that, under very small insolation variations, there is a threshold value of CO2 above which the Greenland Ice Sheet disappears (see the bottom panel of the figure).

The climate system may take 50,000 years to assimilate the impacts of human activities during the early third millennium. In this case, an “irreversible greenhouse
effect” could become the most likely future climate.

[watchwolf49]

Maybe I missed something here … how does CO[sub]2[/sub] levels in Earth’s atmosphere effect the sun’s magnetic field?

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

Maybe I missed something here … how does CO[sub]2[/sub] levels in Earth’s atmosphere effect the sun’s magnetic field?

It does not, the sun’s magnetic field is one forcing (that has been found many times to not be doing much for the warming of the earth nowadays). The overwelming evidence is that solar and orbital forcings are not enough to counter the warming seen coming from CO2 and the researchers you cited just also make note of that.

[watchwolf49]

So then you agree with my post #43?

[ralfy]

“No, we aren’t heading into a ‘mini ice age’”

No, we aren’t heading into a ‘mini ice age’

“Scientists dispute ‘ice age’ warnings”

No one is more surprised than Valentina Zharkova that her research prompted a worldwide media storm over the next ice age.

That’s because her research never even mentioned an ice age.

Scientists dispute 'ice age' warnings

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

So then you agree with my post #43?

Sure, but it became underwhelming by tossing those huge bones to contrarians. Scientists are not guessing, they know about the limitations of a Maunder minimum.

[user_hostile]

@watchwolf49

D’oh … yeah … inversely proportional … thanx

I’ll double D’oh you…a visit to a some boxes storing some old books and papers for something else (after your post) inadvertently revealed a Xerox of the very cold fusion paper you referred to which I made about a month after it was published. :smack:

[/Homer Simpson] O memory, why don’t you remember when we were the best of friends?[/Homer Simpson]

[watchwolf49]

It was a top quality scientific paper … obviously … look how quick it was falsified. It took hundreds of years to falsify Newton’s Law of Gravity.

[kaylasdad99]

@wolfpup

I wish I had a dime for every one of these “news reports” that takes a (possibly) legitimate incremental scientific advance and turns it into “NEWS FLASH!!! EARTHSHAKING SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGH!!! Scientists discover global warming has ceased/will cease/was never happening/was all a big misunderstanding”. Just one dime, that’s all I ask. I’d be a billionaire!

Heh.