Jump to content
Brahea Axel

Mini Ice Age?

Recommended Posts

Brahea Axel

Some scary stuff in the forecast for the midwest coming up, looking like the type of stuff that showed up in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow".

ONE OTHER WEATHER ITEM OF
 NOTE IS THE EXTENDED FORECAST ACROSS THE CENTRAL CONUS. IT MAY BE
 FANTASY LAND AT THIS POINT...BUT THE GFS AND ECMWF DEVELOP A VERY
 STRONG LOW (LESS THAN 1000MB) OVER TX PAN HANDLE WITH A
 1040-1050MB HIGH OVER N PLAINS. THAT WOULD BE A RATHER IMPRESSIVE
 PRESSURE GRADIENT ALONG THE ROCKIES. ADDITIONALLY...THE ECMWF
 BRINGS 850 MB TEMPS OF -35C INTO THE NORTHERN PLAINS AROUND
 DECEMBER 20TH.
 

Snow is falling now during the Summer in the highlands of NSW and Victoria in Australia:

639670-550cadba-5dee-11e3-8eb9-1c57f26bd

Here is the latest sun spot activity in what is supposed to be a maximum:

ScreenShot2013-12-11at102356PM_zpsd41a3c

What the heck? Are we off to a mini ice age?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Keith

I brought this up last year, I think. Being a HAM and shortwave radio guy way back, I have always paid attention to Solar Cycles and noticed a possible change in the last two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JEFF IN MODESTO

Donno.... but... DAMN its cold.

Ive had freezing mornings nine 8 out of 11 mornings this month.

Puddles of water stay frozen in the shade day and night this past week.

In an average winter I may get 10 morning below 32f? But not all at once!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
enigma99

The south pole made a new record all time low this year. And I think the north arctic is super cold too this winter. That is why I don't want anything of it...

In NorCal, the latest revision of the GFS 850 shows temps above freezing now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xerarch

Did you guys see this article? Within the past few years we have a new world record low temperature. Antarctica reached -135.8 F (-93.2 C) in 2010 and -135.3 earlier this year. The previous record was -128.6.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/cold-dis-comfort-antarctica-set-record-1358

Edited by Xerarch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xerarch

Lol didn't see that last post before mine, didn't mean to be redundant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjff

Interesting. Some of the worst freezes 1983 and 1989 occurred near peaks on your chart while 3 of the mildest winters we've had '08-'09, '11-'12, and '12-'13 happened around the deepest valley. '09-'10 and '10-'11 were also very mild winters if you take out the freak 4 day freeze we had in each of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Keith

Any individual cycle would not have an effect. It would take a long consecutive string of minimal cycles. And even that is debatable. It does make logical sense but with only one comparable incident. recorded sunspot cycle history is a very short time to attempt to measure such things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeyranch

Nah. My guess would be that the diminishing remnants of a previously colder Arctic are dislodging and mixing into the mid-latitudes. North Arctic shore of Alaska sets new all time high for December and remember there is almost no daylight at that latitude this time of year. Look at all of the warmer air masses reaching the north and squishing out the cold in this graphic. Crazy contorted jet stream would suggest mixing out.

89d01da3-5a05-4f6e-8de4-09ecd218a23a_650

"Sorry Climate Change Skeptics: Arctic Melting Trend Continues Despite Milder Year"

"Central Alaska's summer was one of the warmest on record, coming months after its coldest April since 1924, NOAA said. Fairbanks experienced a record 36 days of more than 80 degrees. And snow cover in May and June was near record low levels in North America and broke a record for the least snow in Eurasia."

"Sea ice reached its sixth-lowest level since NOAA began measuring — up from the lowest ever in 2012. But the seven lowest levels have all occurred in the last seven years."

I would bet global warming will trump any solar cycles. 400+ ppm of CO2 is going to be hard to argue with.

"The last time CO2 levels at Mauna Loa were this high, Homo sapiens did not live there. In fact, the last time CO2 levels are thought to have been this high was more than 2.5 million years ago, an era known as the Pliocene, when the Canadian Arctic boasted forests instead of icy wastes. The land bridge connecting North America and South America had recently formed. The globe’s temperature averaged about 3 degrees C warmer, and sea level lapped coasts 5 meters or more higher." - Scientific American.

What we are seeing this December isn't historically unusual, in fact these cold outbreaks used to be the norm. It's that now they are so uncommon that it seems relatively notable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeyranch

Only one scientist against the consensus of many others. Also a fairly poor article by this contrarian guy with a sensationalized presentation by National Geo, an organization that lost its way when a membership financed model was replaced with a petroleum and big corporate backed profit model in the late 1990s. This guy's attempt at notoriety is literally wobbly as in Milankovitch cycles. Here are a few excerpts from the last few paragraphs of the article:

""Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [september 13, 2006].)

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said."

Basic Earth Science 101.

"Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin."

Wobbly viewpoint for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alicehunter2000

"The last time CO2 levels at Mauna Loa were this high, Homo sapiens did not live there".............guess that rules out SUV's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sutter Bob

It's been pretty cold here lately. I bet it will get warmer over the next few months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Keith

"The last time CO2 levels at Mauna Loa were this high, Homo sapiens did not live there".............guess that rules out SUV's

It was only that high because dinosaurs make bigger farts than cows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeeth

"The last time CO2 levels at Mauna Loa were this high, Homo sapiens did not live there".............guess that rules out SUV's

All the CO2 comes from somewhere. We're just putting it back into the atmosphere after it was sequestered. That's why typical CO2 fluctuations are much more gradual than what we're currently seeing though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeyranch

"The last time CO2 levels at Mauna Loa were this high, Homo sapiens did not live there".............guess that rules out SUV's

I'm not so sure of your logic.

Flintstones_Family_Car-1000.png

Look at the exhaust coming out of that thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
enigma99

I think this is a dangerous topic and could lead to the threads closure. Historical records show that CO2 levels follow temperature change, not the other way around. Nobody disputes that there is more wild weather now (Extreme cold, droughts, floods, etc) but the question is what the cause is.

Also, they don't call it global warming anymore. It's climate change, because it's so frozen that climate change is a better name.

Here is data on the pole sea ice from NASA. This year was actually a new record for sea ice extent.. guess it won't be melting away afterall lol

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice_south.php

Edited by enigma99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

Nobody disputes that there is more wild weather now (Extreme cold, droughts, floods, etc)

Not so sure about that. Could it be that there are just more people and more property to be damaged now? And because climate change is big news.

Like shark attacks. Sure shark attacks seem to be increasing. But is this because of the sharks - or is this because there are more people in the water more often now? And because the news outlets know what sells best?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alicehunter2000

"The last time CO2 levels at Mauna Loa were this high, Homo sapiens did not live there".............guess that rules out SUV's

I'm not so sure of your logic.

Flintstones_Family_Car-1000.png

Look at the exhaust coming out of that thing.

:floor:

Also.....good point Dean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeeth

I think this is a dangerous topic and could lead to the threads closure. Historical records show that CO2 levels follow temperature change, not the other way around. Nobody disputes that there is more wild weather now (Extreme cold, droughts, floods, etc) but the question is what the cause is.

Also, they don't call it global warming anymore. It's climate change, because it's so frozen that climate change is a better name.

Here is data on the pole sea ice from NASA. This year was actually a new record for sea ice extent.. guess it won't be melting away afterall lol

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice_south.php

Sea ice isn't what we need. We need LAND ice, and that's certainly not increasing. Sea ice being present or absent has no effect on sea levels because it's already in the sea. Land ice does though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brahea Axel

Well, this topic is doing exactly what it should do: provoke interesting discussions.

And these are fascinating discussions. Personally I love to argue on both sides of the fence because the truth is that no one really knows what's going to happen. Intelligence is measured in our ability to hold multiple points of view at any given point in time. With climate, this is truly necessary because most of the science is extrapolating from data, but it's far too complex of a system to be linear and therefore it's relatively unpredictable. One of the great counter arguments to global change is that on CO2, correlation doesn't mean causation. However, when you look at the data, it's hard to argue that climate change isn't happening, and I don't buy the shark attack analogy, because the climate change data comes from scientific measurements, not from more people being around to notice weather.

But even with more CO2, the solar activity decrease could still impact the climate and cause a mini-ice age. Those mini-ice age aren't exactly cold, they're just a cooler period of time, and with global warming, that could correspond to a greenhouse ice age, i.e. not really cold at all.

But if this mess isn't complicated enough, how about throwing in the Pacific Decadal oscillation into the mix? That is probably the main reason why we are experiencing this type of weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjff

You are exacty right, no one really knows what is going to happen. The annoying part is that a certain faction insists they do, and want to shove their views and solutions down the rest of our throats. It has become even more annoying as the overwhelming evidence rolls in that their models are fatally flawed and do not correctly take into account all the factors that affect climate. CO2 levels may be one factor, but ignoring the pacific and atlantic oscillations, sun cycles, etc. that also clearly affect climate is just dumb. Throw in the odd volcanic eruption, asteroid impact, etc. and anybody who claims to know what the climate is going to do just looks like an idiot IMHO. Climate change is a given, it has been changing continuously since Earth came into existence. To believe that man's activities are going to have a major impact on it smack of the same kind of conceit that led people to believe for centuries that everything revolved around the Earth (and thus Man). This is a good article on the subject of a mini ice age. http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/05/report-scientists-predict-a-century-of-global-cooling/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brahea Axel

You are exacty right, no one really knows what is going to happen. The annoying part is that a certain faction insists they do, and want to shove their views and solutions down the rest of our throats. It has become even more annoying as the overwhelming evidence rolls in that their models are fatally flawed and do not correctly take into account all the factors that affect climate. CO2 levels may be one factor, but ignoring the pacific and atlantic oscillations, sun cycles, etc. that also clearly affect climate is just dumb. Throw in the odd volcanic eruption, asteroid impact, etc. and anybody who claims to know what the climate is going to do just looks like an idiot IMHO. Climate change is a given, it has been changing continuously since Earth came into existence. To believe that man's activities are going to have a major impact on it smack of the same kind of conceit that led people to believe for centuries that everything revolved around the Earth (and thus Man). This is a good article on the subject of a mini ice age. http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/05/report-scientists-predict-a-century-of-global-cooling/

Man is having a major impact on the globe, how can anyone even deny that? I don't get that argument at all. You're going to tell me that 7.13 billion people on the planet aren't going to impact the globe? That doesn't make any sense. Even if we weren't pumping tonns of CO2 into the atmosphere, 7.13 billion people and their billions of farm animals produce enough farts to change the climate.

The question isn't if man is having an impact, the question is what that impact is going to end up doing to the climate. That's the part that I believe even the best Science has to offer today isn't going to be able to answer with a lot of precision because it's a highly non-linear system. But just because we don't know doesn't give us the right to play Russian roulette with the climate, and that's why you hear the "faction" speak up so that we change our collective behavior. Some people truly are scared and they have good reason to be. I'm glad I don't live in Florida and my place is at 500 feet elevation.

But this thread isn't about global warming, it's about the impact of the current state of sun cycles on the climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

http://youtu.be/HF9LNuH3IpU

Short and sweet. Yes, you will need to pause strategically to read some of that, but there you go.

I find it almost humorous that any climate change thread gets nixed on this forum so quickly. It's the adult internet version of putting your fingers in your ears and singing, "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" until the scientists stop talking, or give up and go away.

I find it doubly enterataining that some can actually see the effects of global climate change in their lifetimes by the zone change of palms they themselves are growing in the last 20-30 years... but they still deny it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim in Los Altos

I guess we're all doomed then. The 7.13 billion people aren't going to leave and neither are our herds of farting animals. We're doomed. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjff

If man is having such a major impact, then how come all the projections of the "manmade" climate change "scientists" inevitably wind up being woefully inaccurate? We may be having an impact, but it isn't of the magnitude that the alarmists claim. Most of the warming on their charts is far better explained by sun cycles and ocean oscillations than CO2 levels. Personally I hope their CO2 theories are right, we keep pumping it into the air, and I never see a temperature below 20F at my house again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

all it takes is one guy with an opinion to negate thousands of man-years of the scientific process...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjff

all it takes is one guy with an opinion to negate thousands of man-years of the scientific process...

The steps of the scientific method are to:

  • Ask a Question
  • Do Background Research
  • Construct a Hypothesis
  • Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
  • Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
  • Communicate Your Results

The scientists in this case constructed a hypothesis, showed us all projections of where temperatures would be at current CO2 levels, and the data obtained from the "test" indicates their theory is wrong. It is time for them to admit it, or at least call what they are doing religion, not science. Getting back on topic, it does appear that we are in for a mini ice age based on sun cycles and ocean oscillations. The question is, what does that mean for us palm growers in the US. As I noted above it appears that more active sun cycles may result in higher temperatures on average, but they also seem to result in more extreme weather as well including outbreaks of record breaking cold like 1983 and 1989. Also, the pacific ocean oscillation will be causing more frequent La Ninas which generally result in warmer, drier winters for the SW USA, so is the end result cooler temperatures on average with less extreme weather (hot and cold spells)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

An Ice Age, even a "mini" one lasts hundreds or thousands of years and drastically alters the climate over the entire planet.

This localized weather event affecting a small fraction of this globe is a month or so old.

I think we're dealing with a slight order of magnitude problem...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brahea Axel

I guess we're all doomed then. The 7.13 billion people aren't going to leave and neither are our herds of farting animals. We're doomed. :rolleyes:

LMAO

Personally I am more optimistic than that, change is inevitable, and we'll adapt in one way or another.

If man is having such a major impact, then how come all the projections of the "manmade" climate change "scientists" inevitably wind up being woefully inaccurate? We may be having an impact, but it isn't of the magnitude that the alarmists claim. Most of the warming on their charts is far better explained by sun cycles and ocean oscillations than CO2 levels. Personally I hope their CO2 theories are right, we keep pumping it into the air, and I never see a temperature below 20F at my house again.

I would tend to agree, the change is actually rather gradual but it's already measurable. As for you to ever not see anything below 20F at your house, no amount of global warming is going to fix your problem, your problem is related to geography, I think you would need to build a Mountain chain between you and the arctic, like the alps of the Himalayas.

An Ice Age, even a "mini" one lasts hundreds or thousands of years and drastically alters the climate over the entire planet.

This localized weather event affecting a small fraction of this globe is a month or so old.

I think we're dealing with a slight order of magnitude problem...

Nah, the "mini-ice age" refers to a decades-long cooling, similar to what was experienced in the 1700's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjff

I agree you can't draw any conclusions from localized weather events. I'm looking at data that indicates the ocean oscillations are responsible for the stagnant temperatures since 1998, and that the climate for the last century has been driven primarily by 65 year ocean oscillation cycles and 200-year solar cycles. The correlation between these phenomenon and global temperatures is much better than to CO2 levels. CO2 levels can't explain the much warmer temperatures back in the '30's (temperature peak in 1933 and 1998, 65 years exactly????), but the ocean oscillations do. Combine oceans in a phase that won't bottom until about 2030, and a declining solar cycle, and I'd say we are in for some global cooling the next couple of decades regardless of CO2 levels. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean the entire globe will be cooler. Some areas may get much colder, while others warm significantly. Like I said above, if the result is more La Ninas, then my area may actually have much milder winters despite the global cooling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjff

If man is having such a major impact, then how come all the projections of the "manmade" climate change "scientists" inevitably wind up being woefully inaccurate? We may be having an impact, but it isn't of the magnitude that the alarmists claim. Most of the warming on their charts is far better explained by sun cycles and ocean oscillations than CO2 levels. Personally I hope their CO2 theories are right, we keep pumping it into the air, and I never see a temperature below 20F at my house again.

I would tend to agree, the change is actually rather gradual but it's already measurable. As for you to ever not see anything below 20F at your house, no amount of global warming is going to fix your problem, your problem is related to geography, I think you would need to build a Mountain chain between you and the arctic, like the alps of the Himalayas.

Damn you Axel, do you go around telling little kids there is no Santa Claus this time of year too? LMAO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

Nah, the "mini-ice age" refers to a decades-long cooling, similar to what was experienced in the 1700's.

Again, this very localized weather event is a month old. The Little Ice Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age) was arguably centuries long and had effects seen world wide.

We are not entering a period of global cooling.

mjff: "...despite the global cooling." There is no global cooling...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjff

So global cooling is like Fight Club? LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

So global cooling is like Fight Club? LOL!

Global_temperature_change_-_decadal_aver

there is no global cooling...

Edited by Funkthulhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjff

The global cooling is coming. Right now it has been global temperature stagnation since 1998 as the chart below shows.

post-972-0-17918400-1386963244_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

The global cooling is coming. Right now it has been global temperature stagnation since 1998 as the chart below shows.

attachicon.gifGlobal Temps.png

Look, I know it's summer and we're not even into July yet, but the last 3 days haven't been any warmer than last week, so I guess winter's come early!

(Also, if you draw an average trend line through your graph, it just points up...)

(also also, I love how up to 0.5C fluctuations OF THE ENTIRE PLANET equal temperature stagnation to you. . .)

Edited by Funkthulhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjff

Haven't taken the time to draw a trendline since 1998 on that chart, but my guess is it would be pretty much flat at around .2-.3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...