Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 69

Thread: Mini Ice Age On The Way

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,353

    Mini Ice Age On The Way

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/


    Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade
    Alert

    Physicists say sunspot cycle is 'going into hibernation'

    By Lewis Page •

    Posted in Science, 14th June 2011 17:00 GMT


    What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age.
    The announcement made on 14 June (18:00 UK time) comes from scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory. Three different analyses of the Sun's recent behaviour all indicate that a period of unusually low solar activity may be about to begin.

    The Sun normally follows an 11-year cycle of activity. The current cycle, Cycle 24, is now supposed to be ramping up towards maximum strength. Increased numbers of sunspots and other indications ought to be happening: but in fact results so far are most disappointing. Scientists at the NSO now suspect, based on data showing decades-long trends leading to this point, that Cycle 25 may not happen at all.

    This could have major implications for the Earth's climate. According to a statement issued by the NSO, announcing the research:
    An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots [which occurred] during 1645-1715.

    As NASA notes:
    Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.

    During the Maunder Minimum and for periods either side of it, many European rivers which are ice-free today – including the Thames – routinely froze over, allowing ice skating and even for armies to march across them in some cases.

    "This is highly unusual and unexpected," says Dr Frank Hill of the NSO. "But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation."
    Al(fraud)Gore could not be reached for comment.....

  2. #2
    Moderator VIP Visionary
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    31,178
    Are you confirming the existence of climax change in our lives? My wife grows colder every week.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,537
    Going to sit in my igloo and laugh my ass off in ten years listening to the idiots who think we're more powerful than the earth and sun try to explain what happened.

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,276
    I'm not a global warming advocate (I think it's an incorrect science) but the articles like this actually support it occurring.

    Nice try though.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetspennyfan View Post
    I'm not a global warming advocate (I think it's an incorrect science) but the articles like this actually support it occurring.

    Nice try though.
    Its his usual swing and miss

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,165
    I would think that someone who arrives at a prejudice first, then spends a great deal of time trying to find evidence... ANY evidence... to support it would qualify as the Anti-Scientist. I think we have our winner.

    Of course, scientists have been well aware of the sun's cyclical activity for a long time. Not to mention that any cooling of the sun due to reduce activity would be a compensatory factor against global warming which is a product of greenhouse emissions. The predicted effect of the the sun cooling is about half a degree farenheit. The expected effect of global warming is 5-6 degrees farenheit. Nice that the sun may help us out, but it won't be nearly enough to curtail the impact of emissions.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    41,582
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post

    I would think that someone who arrives at a prejudice first, then spends a great deal of time trying to find evidence... ANY evidence... to support it would qualify as the Anti-Scientist.
    I don't think anyone is Anti-Science, at least no-one outside of a small fringe, but I do think there is a large number of Americans who are frustrated and bitterly disappointed with the degree to which science has become so politicized, and they have rightly become cynical and skeptical.

    Its not science people take issue with, its Junk Science and Politicized Science that has made people cynical.

    Its not just global warming, LIL, if science was not so politicized, science (and not religion) would long since have explained why abortion, at least after the first trimester, is indeed barbaric.

    If science had not become another vehicle to promote liberalism, they would tell the truth about when a child becomes viable in the womb and when abortion becomes infanticide, and they absolutely DO know the truth.

    When they talk about it, they talk about it in hushed tones, but they would be leading the charge if not for politics.

    As for Global Warming, we've all seen the leaked memos that were supposed to be private, GW has been exaggerated for political purposes and the scientific community knows it. They have knowingly perpetrated a fraud.

    Instead of being defensive about those leaked memos, what they need to do if they want to regain credibility is APOLOGIZE for their sins, acknowledge they have foolishly allowed politics to influence science, and promise to drop the political agendas and get back to pure science people can trust.


    BTW awesome new avatar (Angel Eyes)
    Last edited by Green Jets & Ham; 06-16-2011 at 10:06 AM.

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,924
    I just got rid of my winter clothes what now?

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    41,582
    Quote Originally Posted by MnJetFan View Post

    I just got rid of my winter clothes what now?

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Jets & Ham View Post
    I...science (and not religion) would long since have explained why abortion, at least after the first trimester, is indeed barbaric.
    This is where science and religion cross with me. The bible openly advocates for abortion.

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,352


    Product Description

    When a new technology-free government of the United States is elected to counteract the onset of the greenhouse effect, a devastating ice age results, and two hunted Space Hab astronauts become the planet's only hope for survival.

  12. #12
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    i choose not to believe this science... because they don't have enough data. what is 400 years of data worth? the earth is billions of years old.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Jets & Ham View Post
    If science had not become another vehicle to promote liberalism, they would tell the truth about when a child becomes viable in the womb and when abortion becomes infanticide, and they absolutely DO know the truth.
    Reproductive rights are clearly not about science or religion they are about personal liberty and competiting interests.

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetspennyfan View Post
    I'm not a global warming advocate (I think it's an incorrect science) but the articles like this actually support it occurring.

    Nice try though.
    How does this article support Man Made Global Warming when it is attributing solar activity to the warming and potential cooling?

    If AGW were true and we are going to head into another mini-ice age then shouldn't we be trying to INCREASE Carbon Dioxide emmisions? I am going to go idle my car for an hour and burn some leaves.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,353
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    Its his usual swing and miss
    The only people swinging and missing are the man made glo-bull warming nuts....

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,353
    http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/...lobal-warming/


    Ten Years And Counting: Where’s The Global Warming?

    Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.

    The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case for global sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.


    If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.

    There is a difference between global warming theory and alarmist global warming theory. Global warming theory holds that certain atmospheric gases warm the earth. Unless other factors intervene, adding more of these gases will tend to warm the atmosphere. This is well accepted across the scientific community. Alarmist global warming theory entails the additional assertion that the earth’s sensitivity to even very modest changes in atmospheric gases is extremely high. This is in sharp scientific dispute and has been repeatedly contradicted by real-world climate conditions.

    Most powerfully, global temperature trends during the twentieth century sharply defied atmospheric carbon dioxide trends. More than half of the warming during the twentieth century occurred prior to the post-World War II economic boom, yet atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions rose minimally during this time. Between 1945 and 1977, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels jumped rapidly, yet global temperatures declined. Only during the last quarter of the century was there an appreciable correlation between greenhouse gas trends and global temperature trends. But that brief correlation has clearly disappeared this century.

    Which brings us back to the sharp scientific disagreement about whether the earth’s climate is extremely sensitive or merely modestly sensitive to minor variances in the composition of its atmospheric gases. Carbon dioxide comprises far less than 1 percent of the earth’s atmosphere. In fact, we could multiply the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere a full 25 times and it would still equal less than 1 percent of the earth’s atmosphere. The alarmists claim that the minor increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 100 years, from roughly 3 parts per 10,000 to roughly 4 parts per 10,000, is causing climate havoc. Real-world temperature data tell us an entirely different story.

    The Scientific Method requires testing a proposed scientific hypothesis before accepting it as the truth. When real-world observations contradict the hypothesis, you go back to the drawing board. For more than a century now, real-world climate conditions have defied the alarmist global warming hypothesis. This is especially so during the past decade, when temperatures should be rising dramatically if the alarmist hypothesis is correct. Temperatures are not rising dramatically. They are not even rising at all.

    Oh well, back to the old drawing board…

    James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    41,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post

    Reproductive rights are clearly not about science or religion they are about personal liberty and competiting interests.
    Yeah but don't you think science has an obligation to tell people when a child becomes viable or when he or she can feel pain if they have the answers to those questions, and whats stopping them if not politics?

    They don't have to become pro life advocates, but tell the truth, tell people what the science is and that will allow people to make an informed decision one way or the other.
    Last edited by Green Jets & Ham; 06-16-2011 at 02:31 PM.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Jets & Ham View Post
    Yeah but don't you think science has an obligation to tell people when a child becomes viable or when he or she can feel pain if they have the answers to those questions, and whats stopping them if not politics?

    They don't have to become pro life advocates, but tell the truth, tell people what the science is and that will allow them to make an informed decision one way or the other.
    In a perfect world, sure, but you know that isn't how our world works. If it was then people would help each other out, there would be no wars, no cheating husbands or wives, no starving kids, ... Basically the vast majority of people are out for themselves or at the very least for their small group/family/etc. I know I am cynical but I feel I am a realist.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Jets & Ham View Post
    I don't think anyone is Anti-Science, at least no-one outside of a small fringe, but I do think there is a large number of Americans who are frustrated and bitterly disappointed with the degree to which science has become so politicized, and they have rightly become cynical and skeptical.

    Its not science people take issue with, its Junk Science and Politicized Science that has made people cynical.

    Its not just global warming, LIL, if science was not so politicized, science (and not religion) would long since have explained why abortion, at least after the first trimester, is indeed barbaric.

    If science had not become another vehicle to promote liberalism, they would tell the truth about when a child becomes viable in the womb and when abortion becomes infanticide, and they absolutely DO know the truth.

    When they talk about it, they talk about it in hushed tones, but they would be leading the charge if not for politics.

    As for Global Warming, we've all seen the leaked memos that were supposed to be private, GW has been exaggerated for political purposes and the scientific community knows it. They have knowingly perpetrated a fraud.

    Instead of being defensive about those leaked memos, what they need to do if they want to regain credibility is APOLOGIZE for their sins, acknowledge they have foolishly allowed politics to influence science, and promise to drop the political agendas and get back to pure science people can trust.


    BTW awesome new avatar (Angel Eyes)
    Re Avatar, somebody needs to grab Tuco, while he's still available. Then we'd have the whole trio.

    My point about the "Anti-scientist" is that good science doesn't assume the right answer first, then go about proving it. Good science does precisely the opposite. Observe carefully, establish an hypothesis, then test it and replicate it to establish predictive value. The problem with the global warming rejectionists is that global warming, whatever its precise rate, is akin to being diagnosed with cancer. You can ignore it and hope the body finds a way to defy the odds. But if you are wrong and you let it spread, you have no options. There are tipping points in nature that are irreversible. Why not institute and sustain reduced/safe emissions? Most of the world, even countries like China, understand that basic point. Why is this so hard to grasp in the U.S., except for the political noise that drowns out the data?

    Re abortion, I can only say that viability is for me the critical issue in determining at what point a mother has the right to terminate pregnancy. I also recognize that the viability window is getting larger, as medicine becomes more sophisticated. I do not believe that an embryo prior to viability has protected rights.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Jets & Ham View Post
    Yeah but don't you think science has an obligation to tell people when a child becomes viable or when he or she can feel pain if they have the answers to those questions, and whats stopping them if not politics?

    They don't have to become pro life advocates, but tell the truth, tell people what the science is and that will allow people to make an informed decision one way or the other.
    Since when is the pro life position a childs viability?

    By the way what makes you think scientist are a monolithic bunch that are knee jerk liberals?
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 06-16-2011 at 02:56 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us