Mini Ice Age?

[palmblues]

yes a 'meteorologist' or as they are known on TV as 'the daily weather forecaster' or 'the weatherman'. Or you could go to NOAA or NASA, where they do actual science, and see where 2013 ranks among the warmest years on record worldwide. The real science report which came out today and is not a tv opinion piece is interesting too. Spoiler alert! it's not good news for the mini ice agers. Or for us all. But hey, you have Joe to give you his opinion, so carry on all.

[palmblues]

its funny too that as your 'go to' guy you pull out a meteorologist, a local tv weatherman, which is what Bastardi did for most of his career, forecast the local weather, and btw still does. The same guy who you would curse out every other day on the way to work b/c he couldn't even get the daily forecast right. So the guy who had trouble with the local forecast is the person you trust talking about the climate of the whole planet? I get it, you were spoofing right? ;-)

[Funkthulhu]

"The year 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

A lot more data and explanation in that link.

(37 consecutive years. . . )

[enigma99]

Warmists vs the ice agers

[Funkthulhu]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

I like the term "Warmist", it makes me sound friendly and desirable to be around. . .

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

Ahhh i see. So this links back to the original post on Mini Ice Age? which shows the Russian scientist Abdusamatov's Solar Activity Chart where he claims we are entering another Maunder Minimum b/c the Sun seems to be declining and less active in this present cycle. Is that the correlation? It is possible of course but here is a quote from Nasa which would dispute the Sun's influence on our recent warming.

"... However it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means the Sun is not the cause of the present warming."

So basically everyone is hoping a less active Sun will cool the planet even as there is no evidence showing that the Sun has recently warmed the planet.

I do hope your Abdusamatov is right.

Actually, the initial post was about this single outlying paper which claims we may be entering a mini-ice age due to lack of solar activity. The point was to discuss its validity or lack thereof, with a hope the thread would not derail into a global warming debate. After all the posts that have been made, my personal conclusion is that the paper is most likely bunk.

What would interest me more is to look at the various climate indices (ENSO, PDO, AO etc...) and see how they correlate with solar activity. It would be great if someone actually took the time to look at the data and analyse it for correlations. That knowledge would give us far more insight as to how the current solar activity decline would affect the climate, whether or not there is man-made global warming.

[_Keith]

Ahhh i see. So this links back to the original post on Mini Ice Age? which shows the Russian scientist Abdusamatov's Solar Activity Chart where he claims we are entering another Maunder Minimum b/c the Sun seems to be declining and less active in this present cycle. Is that the correlation? It is possible of course but here is a quote from Nasa which would dispute the Sun's influence on our recent warming.

"... However it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means the Sun is not the cause of the present warming."

So basically everyone is hoping a less active Sun will cool the planet even as there is no evidence showing that the Sun has recently warmed the planet.

I do hope your Abdusamatov is right.

Observing sunspots cycles over a single or a couple of cycles is pretty meaningless in terms of global cooling or warming. Take a look at this chart. Particularly the relationship between the Sporer Minimum and the Maunder Minimum, and compare to today's Sunspot cycle levels, even compared to the current lackluster cycle for that matter. And there is indeed a possible correlation between sunspot cycle activity and a warming period which we are in today. Remember Sunspots are maybe a leading indicator and actual temperatures would be a lagging indicator. All of this stuff about a coming Ice Age would related to the current cycle and the several that might succeed it. In other words, we'll know about cooling due to sunspots in probably 33 to 44 years from now, maybe, and only IF the cycles continue to diminish.

Courtesy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

[amazondk]

What I find interesting is that many people tend to equate getting warmer as bad. As the Earth will probably either get colder or warmer and not stay in the current temperature range it will be one or the other. One of the charts I posted earlier pointed out that based on proxy data from ice cores previous inter-glacial periods had warmer temperatures than the current inter-glacial it is not strange to think that the Earth could still be warming with or without man. A colder Earth is not a friendlier Earth for humans. Unless you like to do a lot of winter activities. I remember when I was a child seeing something that people could put big mirrors up in space to eliminate winter. I don´t think they took into account sea level change with this project though. I guess that was before global warming was discovered.

dk

[palmblues]

Ahhh i see. So this links back to the original post on Mini Ice Age? which shows the Russian scientist Abdusamatov's Solar Activity Chart where he claims we are entering another Maunder Minimum b/c the Sun seems to be declining and less active in this present cycle. Is that the correlation? It is possible of course but here is a quote from Nasa which would dispute the Sun's influence on our recent warming.

"... However it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means the Sun is not the cause of the present warming."

So basically everyone is hoping a less active Sun will cool the planet even as there is no evidence showing that the Sun has recently warmed the planet.

I do hope your Abdusamatov is right.

Actually, the initial post was about this single outlying paper which claims we may be entering a mini-ice age due to lack of solar activity. The point was to discuss its validity or lack thereof, with a hope the thread would not derail into a global warming debate. After all the posts that have been made, my personal conclusion is that the paper is most likely bunk.

What would interest me more is to look at the various climate indices (ENSO, PDO, AO etc...) and see how they correlate with solar activity. It would be great if someone actually took the time to look at the data and analyse it for correlations. That knowledge would give us far more insight as to how the current solar activity decline would affect the climate, whether or not there is man-made global warming.

Axel. the NASA article i quoted came from a study of the Sun's activity for the past 150 years and noted that the minor fluctuations in the Earth's temperatures closely followed the Sun's solar activity right up until the end of the 1970's and then the Earth started warming even as the Sun stayed the same or as its been doing slightly diminished. So they know the Sun is not the cause of the present warming. Also during the Maunder Minimum which is used by Abdusamatov in the chart of your original post, the Earth was at most -.2*C cooler than the historical average of the time. Even if we enter the same Minimum now it will do very little to cool the planet. Also the Sun is in the middle of its cycle. There is no way to predict correctly what it will do for the rest of the cycle at least according to scientist's.

Edited January 23, 2014 by palmblues

[amazondk]

I am going to Montana in a few weeks to enjoy some cold hopefully. Personally I think we need to worry about things we can change. The rest just go along for the ride. I am enjoying the Amazonian winter which is really the summer in the southern hemisphere. It is winter because it is the rainy season. So, the sun only bakes your brains for intermittent periods. Actually the past winter, 2013 in Brazil was quite cold. There was record snow fall in the south. Brazilians all go to see the snow when it falls. And, last year was a banner one. I know that is weather not climate. And, here where I am when it was snowing and freezing it was over 38 C.

dk

[Bill H2DB]

Worldwide , we humans are consuming over 230,000,000 BOE's per day . 7days a week . We all use it, so it's not a blame game to me.

But how can this go on and on without eventually producing some effect ?

A mini Ice age might be retarded by this , wouldn't it ? Not necessarily prevented , but attenuated to some degree.

If it becomes colder , MY consumption of energy would increase . I like heat way more than I do cold . Way more .

Every day 10,000 people in each of the two most populous nations get off of a bicycle , and into a car . People

around the world are increasing consumption everyday . Soon there will be production of Methane from the oceans .

It's an interesting study , but in the end we are just something that got to this point as a natural product of our inventiveness ,

curiosity etc. We probably will run our course. Many events can change the whole path that we are on. A period of heavy

volcanic activity , a significant asteroid etc. Don't worry , be happy .

[palmblues]

Unfortunately, warmer is NOT better. Almost every glacier worldwide is melting and retreating, Godard Institute has found the Arctic is now 3.5*F warmer than 50 years ago, Greenland is melting in parts, all of which means Ocean rise. The extra heat also means the oceans waters themselves are expanding. And the extra carbon humans have put into the atmosphere, accelerating the rise in temp, also has the effect of acidifying the oceans. We are changing everything which was the norm for human existence and animal existence. And fast. The last time 400 ppm of carbon was in the atmosphere, humans did not exist. And it only took a 5*F lowering of temp to start the last great ice age. We're currently at a 1.4*+F rise in temp since 1970 and moving up. Warmer is not better! For good scientific peer reviewed information check Skepticalscience.com . Its not good where warming is leading us.

Edited January 23, 2014 by palmblues

[enigma99]

Is this where we are headed?

[amazondk]

. Its not good where warming is leading us.

Is it good where cold would take us? I believe the medieval dark ages with massive crop failures was not really a happy time. - From Wikipediea"

Climate and population[edit]

During the Medieval Warm Period (the period prior to 1300) the population of Europe had exploded, reaching levels that were not matched again in some places until the nineteenth century. However, the yield ratios of wheat (the number of seeds one could eat per seed planted) had been dropping since 1280 and food prices had been climbing. In good weather the ratio could be as high as 7:1, while during bad years as low as 2:1 – that is, for every seed planted, two seeds were harvested, one for next year's seed, and one for food. By comparison, modern farming has ratios of 30:1 or more.^[2] See Agricultural productivity.

The onset of the Great Famine coincided with the end of the Medieval Warm Period. Between 1310 and 1330 northern Europe saw some of the worst and most sustained periods of bad weather in the entire Middle Ages, characterized by severe winters and rainy and cold summers.

Changing weather patterns, the ineffectiveness of medieval governments in dealing with crises and a population level at a historical high made it a time when there was little margin for error."

I personally am sort of neutral as to what is better or worse, the climate we have or get is the only one we have. And, I really can not see much that can be done in the short to medium run one way or another. If economic growth is what keeps things moving globally it will be hard to keep the Chinese all on bicycles. There is peer reviewed information on all sides of the climate debate. That does not mean that one is right and the other is wrong when no one when really knows what will happen, or even is really happening. It is a very complex planet with many variables. Maybe my perspective is a bit different as I do not live in the USA. I live in a south american city, in a good part of town on a street and in an area that is full of relatively poor people. Poor and rich are real mixed up in Brazil for the most part. Economic growth is what allows people to have motorcycles that only could walk or take mass transit before. And, mass transit in Brazil is not fun. The buses are loaded, there is no AC, and you might get robbed in the process of going to work. And, a lot of people do not have much to eat. Not that they are starving. They just do not have the money to buy a lot of food. And, in a lot of places on Earth people are much worse off. And, I don't know how they would better off in a colder drier world. A colder world by nature is drier. The Ice Ages were drier and colder. Even here on the equator. The Amazon rain forest where I live was still a rain forest, just a cooler one. Most of the same plants and animals where here. As it still did not freeze around these parts. But, a lot of the world was not a very climate friendly place. I guess the best we can do is to try to create economic growth with the least impact possible which will allow more people to live better and not bring on undesired consequences. Now, I do not know if that is possible or not. There is a lot of interesting information in this thread. But, from what I can see the question of are we entering a mini ice age will only be answered when it comes or not. And, who knows what the time from for that will be.

dk

[Funkthulhu]

What I find interesting is that many people tend to equate getting warmer as bad. As the Earth will probably either get colder or warmer and not stay in the current temperature range it will be one or the other. One of the charts I posted earlier pointed out that based on proxy data from ice cores previous inter-glacial periods had warmer temperatures than the current inter-glacial it is not strange to think that the Earth could still be warming with or without man. A colder Earth is not a friendlier Earth for humans. Unless you like to do a lot of winter activities. I remember when I was a child seeing something that people could put big mirrors up in space to eliminate winter. I don´t think they took into account sea level change with this project though. I guess that was before global warming was discovered.

dk

Again, if the average temperature of your localized region goes up 1 or 2 degrees, nobody cares. Arguably it would be good for you, locally. But 1 or 2 degrees average rise world wide equates to extreme local fluctuations both up and down. More heat is more energy in the atmosphere, more energy in the atmosphere means more extreme weather, more extreme weather inevitably leads to more natural disasters. A warmer Earth is not friendlier, it is a Deadlier Earth.

And let's not forget how a warmer Earth with effect sea-level rise. There are about Half a Billion people who will need to move in as little as the next 50 years; most on regions that cannot absorb anything close to the numbers of refugees that would be created by a meter or two of sea-level rise. That sort of social stress leads to regime changes, famine, plague and war. Also, go look at an atlas, how many of our planet's mega-cities are right on the coast? What's it going to cost to relocate all of that infrastructure? Could we even do that?

Good for people, good for the planet, the cost to change our ways is too high. . . All of these arguments are bunk, or outright lies when set up next to the truth.

[Alicehunter2000]

Don....stop....you're making too much sense.

[amazondk]

Yes David maybe I should. I think it would be great if the planet's climate just stayed as it is. But, it has never done so. So why should it now? If the sea levels get to where they have been in previous inter glacials ocean front property will take on a new definition. Or, the dyke building industry will explode. I have a hard time figuring out how warmer is worse than colder. I do not think we are facing the point yet where the sun will boil the oceans like it will in a few billion years. I find it hard to imagine that the world will move away from hydrocarbons as the main energy source for some time. That is unless some real break through in technology happens. Now if the US citizens make a big effort to reduce energy consumption. Will that off set the increase in energy consumption as the Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, Africans, and others become wealthier, consume more, drive more cars, use hot water, have more lights in their houses, etc? Can those who now have say to those that do not that they do not have a right to have more? The a large segment of the world's population does not have. The have not group. In my business I have been having a lot of contact with the Chinese lately. The main source of the products I am dealing with, LED lights, come from China. So, I have been paying more attention to China. What impresses me is how much they go after business. How fast they follow up. And, how fast they ask for the business. Now China is in the process of incorporating millions into a larger consumer group to sustain growth to diversify away from an export based industrial sector. To live better they really have no choice but to grow. And, even as technology improves with cleaner fuels, etc. This increased level of consumption is going to have a major impact on a lot of things. The same for India and other places. Even Africa is starting to grow more in many parts. Since all of these people will be eating more. And, a cold climate impacts food production, at least under current technologies. So, if carbon is forcing upward temperatures, and maybe it is. Will all of the people who are starting to consume more and have better living standards contribute to a decrease in carbon emissions?

On another note. Why do I live on the Equator in the low land tropics - IT NEVER GETS COLD. I was raised with cold. I love the mountains in the winter time. But, I can get on a plane and go there. I do not have to cope with it on a seasonal level at all. And, I can choose when I want to go for the most part. I have been sitting and watching CNN lately with the stories of the cold and hardships in the NE of the USA and other places. I can relate ok. But, when I go out the door a cold day is 85 F. And, a cool night is 72 F. The mini ice topic is an interesting one. But, I still do not see what more can be done than mitigate what ever is possible to when what ever change comes. Since the only constant in life is change there is not much we can do about that.

LIFE IS TOUGH ON THE EQUATOR

[amazondk]

I just noticed this article - The NY Times on Europe

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/business/international/european-union-lowers-ambitions-on-renewable-energy.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20140123&_r=0

[Explorer]

Well I am from Europe. And I do not believe much of all the CO 2 fuss. They seem to focuss to much on CO 2 and forget the rest!

But I reckon its good to make a shift to more solar energy and other alternatives. Better then windmills! It can be generated locally. And they work as long as you get light! Even on cloudy gloomy winterdays they produce some electricity.

Those solarpanels can be placed on buildings for local electricity production. And the surplus can be used to produce hydrogen. And producing them will create new jobs. And research to alternative ways to generate elictricity will also give a bost to technical inovation.

And it would be good to get indepandent from fossil fuels as much as possible.

Fracking for example could polute groundwater. I suppose you get a serious problem if your local drinking water source gets undrinkable!

And tradional fossil fuels will finish one day. So you need alternatives long before that happens. Nuclear energy is also no sollution, Japan is a recent example. And not the first one...

Alexander

Edited January 24, 2014 by Explorer

[enigma99]

And tradional fossil fuels will finish one day. So you need alternatives long before that happens. Nuclear energy is also no sollution, Japan is a recent example. And not the first one...

Yes Nuclear is very bad. They should be banned from the face of the Earth. I think more clean coal plants should be constructed or natural gas works too.

[Bill H2DB]

This is from The Huffington Press today . Sorry if it has been posted previously .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/solar-lull-little-ice-age-sun-scientists_n_4645248.html

[_Keith]

I got your mini-damn ice age right here tonight in S. Louisiana. You can have it back, too.

[amazondk]

Keith,

Maybe you can call it a Micro Ice Age. Since CO2 is cited as one of the main causes of human driving of climate change I looked for some opposing opinions. Of course I found them. In fact those that say that CO2 is not the villain also have their reasons. There are those that say that CO2 is actually more beneficial than the opposite. After all CO2 is what makes gardens, forests, palms, and all plants grow. On a local focus to where I live, right smack in the middle of the Amazon Forest there have been observations that the forest is growing faster as CO2 levels have increased. Back in the drought of 2005 there were may saying that the end of the Amazon rain forest was starting to happen. In fact studies have shown that the forest is much more resilient to drought, which also has been a natural cycle in the region. It appears from studies that have been made that in fact increased CO2 levels have been beneficial to the forest. What has not been beneficial is cutting the forest down to make grasslands to raise cattle on. Or, converting forest to soy bean plantations. Wonder if CO2 is not the bad guy as many claim. That could easily happen. Many things have been thought to be different than they actually are. Even though hydrocarbons get a lot of blame I would not be sitting here writing this without them. I probably would just not be anywhere.

This site has an opposing view with many different articles. This one is specifically about the forest where I live - http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/greening/southamerica.php

One can not appreciate the enormous scale of Amazonian until one sees it. This is from a float plane on a trip I took from the middle of the forest at an oil exploration camp a few years ago.

These are the trees that they say are living well in the increased CO2. Of course there are people that say differntly.

There is no river like the Amazon River. It still looked a lot like this from this spot during the last Glacial Minimum. So, I do not think the mini ice age will be much different.

[amazondk]

I hope I have not posted too much. I just got sort of inspired. This video, which is about an hour long by the guys from the CO2 site is actually quite interesting. I really have no idea what is really going on with climate. And, in reality that is the point of the people in the video. They have some good points. With the alarmists on one side and the skeptics on the other the truth is somewhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmGz2hABFmQ&feature=share&list=UUj3D4jZERL6BFVk56BTvATQ

[_Keith]

I hope I have not posted too much. I just got sort of inspired. This video, which is about an hour long by the guys from the CO2 site is actually quite interesting. I really have no idea what is really going on with climate. And, in reality that is the point of the people in the video. They have some good points. With the alarmists on one side and the skeptics on the other the truth is somewhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmGz2hABFmQ&feature=share&list=UUj3D4jZERL6BFVk56BTvATQ

Too much? What? I am loving it. Definitely missed your constant presence on the board last year.

[amazondk]

Now that the latest Arctic blast has moved into history I ended up seeing this graph of the last 15,000 years climate history which was produced by data from Greenland ice cores. It is interesting to say the least as it shows how warm the Holocene has been. And, how rapid some of the climate change has been. And, in a pre human produced CO2 world.

[amazondk]

I found another graph just to have a comparison.

Here is another one,

[amazondk]

Another interesting thing is that it is now believed that polar bears have been around for at least 600,000 years. And, during this time have weathered periods of less arctic ice than today. But, then again there were not men around to put stress on them like today.

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-polar-evolved-earlier-previously-thought.html

[Dakotafl]

I really am not either a supporter of any of these ideas, they are both the extremes, nothing is static and the world is going to change no matter what we do, but it's going to take more than a decade for any of us to be sure, weather people have been wrong plenty of times, scientists have also been wrong when it comes to the weather more than they have been right.

I think its wrong for us to jump to conclusions about the weather just because of a few decades.

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial:

Efforts to downplay the significance of climate change resemble the determined efforts of tobacco lobbyists, in the face of scientific evidence linking tobacco to lung cancer, to prevent or delay the introduction of regulation. Lobbyists attempted to discredit the scientific research by creating doubt and manipulating debate. They worked to discredit the scientists involved, to dispute their findings, and to create and maintain an apparent controversy by promoting claims that contradicted scientific research. ""Doubt is our product," boasted a now infamous 1969 industry memo. Doubt would shield the tobacco industry from litigation and regulation for decades to come."^%5B63%5D

Sadly, it's gonna look a little more like this.