Solar Cycle #24 fails to start. New ice Age coming?

[Merc]

From the Australian as written by Phil Chapman, a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.

original article http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html

Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh
Phil Chapman | April 23, 2008

THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.

What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.

All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.

It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years.

This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.

It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.

The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.

Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.

That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.

It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.

There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.

Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases.

There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet.

The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years.

The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years.

The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027.

By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining.

Australia may escape total annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees. Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000 centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time.

If the ice age is coming, there is a small chance that we could prevent or at least delay the transition, if we are prepared to take action soon enough and on a large enough scale.

For example: We could gather all the bulldozers in the world and use them to dirty the snow in Canada and Siberia in the hope of reducing the reflectance so as to absorb more warmth from the sun.

We also may be able to release enormous floods of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the hydrates under the Arctic permafrost and on the continental shelves, perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the deposits.

We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades.

The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible.

All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.

It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.

In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

[sukie]

Uh... Have any of these "Hacks" ever peer reviewed? Hee Hee

Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California

They are all shills for big oil. LOL

[Merc]

Unlike the warmlings, he doesn't say that it is going to happen but I wish that the warmlings would at least look at the data and not dismiss it out of hand. The one sentence that stands out is this little tidbit of reality is this one:

The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years. The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue.

The warmlings whole preimise is that we are the earth is to warm, based on who knows what standard, but the ugly reality is warmer is better than colder and colder is the norm. Only wacky environmentalist warmlings would complain about living in a warm, intergalacial period and demand we stop it! LMAO.

[anEinherjer]

I wish environmental issues could be discussed without one side screaming bloody murder that we're going to destroy everything and the other responding with, essentially, "Good.".... Oh well, dare to dream.

[sukie]

Who ever says "good"? It's more like "we are... no we're not."

[gebobs]

I wish environmental issues could be discussed without one side screaming bloody murder that we're going to destroy everything and the other responding with, essentially, "Good.".... Oh well, dare to dream.

I wish that Merc could write one post without resorting to pejoratives. It only takes away from his arguments.

[gebobs]

The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years. The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue.


Great stuff. Unfortunately, this is not contrary to anthropogenic climate change theory. Nothing new here.


The warmlings whole preimise is that we are the earth is to warm, based on who knows what standard, but the ugly reality is warmer is better than colder and colder is the norm. Only wacky environmentalist warmlings would complain about living in a warm, intergalacial period and demand we stop it! LMAO.

Let me get this straight. Humans are not causing warming. We're heading into an ice age. So we better disrupt global natural cycles and continue warming the planet. Rinse and repeat.

[sukie]

Last sentence is contradictory... We cannot continue the warming since we are not warming it in the first place according to the thread start.

[Bellowing4DaBills]

Uh... Have any of these "Hacks" ever peer reviewed? Hee Hee

Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California

They are all shills for big oil. LOL

What's so funny?

Goddard headed by James Hansen is well known for putting out data and news releases that backs up AGW.

Hadley Climate Research also backs up AGW.

Christy is also on record saying humans cause climate change.

[Bellowing4DaBills]

Uh... Have any of these "Hacks" ever peer reviewed? Hee Hee

Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California

They are all shills for big oil. LOL

What's so funny?

Goddard headed by James Hansen is well known for putting out data and news releases that backs up AGW.

Hadley Climate Research also backs up AGW.

Christy is also on record saying humans cause climate change.

[35Pete]

What's so funny?

Goddard headed by James Hansen is well known for putting out data and news releases that backs up AGW.

Hadley Climate Research also backs up AGW.

Christy is also on record saying humans cause climate change.

What have you proven now???? :hmm:

[K-Gun]

I want to see proof that warm interglacial periods come in 10,000 year segments, followed by thousands of years of ice age where Europe and North America are buried.

I know nothing about this, so I want to know if this is proven.

[Merc]

I want to see proof that warm interglacial periods come in 10,000 year segments, followed by thousands of years of ice age where Europe and North America are buried.

I know nothing about this, so I want to know if this is proven.

Google is your friend.

[Shama-Lama Ding Dong]

Unlike the warmlings, he doesn't say that it is going to happen but I wish that the warmlings would at least look at the data and not dismiss it out of hand.

The warmlings whole preimise is that we are the earth is to warm, based on who knows what standard, but the ugly reality is warmer is better than colder and colder is the norm. Only wacky environmentalist warmlings would complain about living in a warm, intergalacial period and demand we stop it! LMAO.

Are you at all aware of your presuppositions?

[K-Gun]

Google is your friend.

oh, i see. you're not at all interested in finding out if this article is true.

[Merc]

oh, i see. you're not at all interested in finding out if this article is true.

Nah, I am not at all interested in arguing with you. What's the point? I could lay all my facts on the table and you'll call them BS, even when the Global Warming Awareness picnic has to be moved inside because of the blizzard in late April. Google that one, it is a pretty funny story. remember Al Gores big GW speech that got snowed out? LOL.

[K-Gun]

Nah, I am not at all interested in arguing with you. What's the point? I could lay all my facts on the table and you'll call them BS, even when the Global Warming Awareness picnic has to be moved inside because of the blizzard in late April. Google that one, it is a pretty funny story. remember Al Gores big GW speech that got snowed out? LOL.

you're arguing with yourself, and you look like a dick. show me a single post where i have said that global warming is posing an eminent danger. Like I said before, I don't know shit about climate. Do you?

Let me see "your facts."

oh wait, let me guess, you just post shit that you agree with.

Here's a hint, a "fact" is a piece of information that has been proven true. "Proven" means beyond reasonable doubt. Are you telling me that you know that interglacials have been proven to only last 10,000 years?

Cause all I see is a guy stating a premise. He offers no supporting evidence of his assertion. That's just as valid of an argument as saying "A Flying Spaghetti Monster Created Global Warming."

How the **** do YOU know that interglacials only last 10,000 years? Cause if you do KNOW that shit you goddamn have a duty to educate us on that, because that would be the single most important issue for all of humanity to start addressing tomorrow. And yet your attitude is more like, "yeah bitches, we're going to be covered in ice soon, haha you're wrong I win."

Jesus, if it is a fact that North America and Europe will be covered in 1.5 kilometers of ice in 20-50 years, and YOU know it, then you're a ****ing ******** for using that knowledge to try and win a pissing contest, and not trying to devote your life to getting the rest of us to recognize the deathly consequences of the situation.

But if I had to bet on it, I put my money on the fact that you don't know shit.

[г]

"A Flying Spaghetti Monster Created Global Warming."
Y'all think it was one of them thar 'Spaghetti Monsters' cause ah read it raight there on the Freepers ?

'Spaghetti' - Pfffft

Everyone knows it's one of them thar 'Cheese Monsters'

[Merc]

K-Gun, I have posted several GW threads and each time you want me to relink from those posts. It is ridiculous. Go back and read them and use the links. I cannot possibly repost every link every single time I post a new article.

[gebobs]

Last sentence is contradictory... We cannot continue the warming since we are not warming it in the first place according to the thread start.

Precisely my point. Climate change deniers attack the theory in contradictory ways e.g. the planet's not getting warmer, but if it was it's because of the Sun.

[г]

In his eyes,
i'm full grown
29 and still at home
raid the fridge
feed my face
i'm a sun thats a disgrace
Living free
don´t pay rent
brought the car back with a dent
i'm asleep
counting sheep
thought i heard him scream again
arsehole sun, you're a bum
you trashed the car again
arsehole sun, what a bum, what a bum
arsehole sun, mow the lawn
and put your clothes away
arsehole sun, what a bum, what a bum
(arsehole sun, arsehole sun)
what a bum
(arsehole sun, arsehole sun)
what a bum
(arsehole sun, arsehole sun)

http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Weird-Al-Yankovic/*******-Sun.html

[Merc]

No, they don't gebob. The planet did warm, it is warm now. The warming has apparently stopped, however, and over the last year has actually seemed to decrease from the 1998 temperature. GW advocates have no explanation for this. It is an anomaly and warming will start again soon is their best explanation. The solar theory group sees a direct correlation between sun activity and these temperature fluctuations. Right now there is almost no sunspot activity and we have sudden cooling. If cycle #24 starts then sunspot activity will rapidly increase and we should see temperatures warm a bit. The author is saying that we better hope that cycle #24 starts or we could be in for more cooling.

That is all that is being said in the above, albeit over-dramatically IMO. Man made GWing advocates do not want to consider this solar activity as having any influence on earth's climate as it destroys their basic premise that GWing is man made. That is the argument we are having here.

[gebobs]

Let's have some cites, Merc. Sounds interesting.

[Bellowing4DaBills]

More propaganda from NASA Goddard Institute, the big oil shills. He he he. LOL.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation

The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.

Figure 1 shows 2007 temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 base period mean. The global mean temperature anomaly, 0.57°C (about 1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 mean, continues the strong warming trend of the past thirty years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Hansen et al. 2007). The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990...

[anEinherjer]

Again with the demand for cites.

http://climatechangedaily.com

Google.

Merc's not dumping stuff in a post that's never been seen around here. That "links please" demand is getting old.

[gebobs]

Again with the demand for cites.

Demand? Hardly. It was a request. Call it what you like. I'm asking for it. Don't like it? I couldn't care less. Go ahead and whine some more about my reasonable requests for supporting evidence.

If Merc doesn't care to support his claims, then what the heck is the point of posting? If he's trying to convince anyone, it's not working. Except maybe with you.


Merc's not dumping stuff in a post that's never been seen around here. That "links please" demand is getting old.

Too bad. Pound salt. You're going to see a lot of it here from now on. Keep crying about it and see if it makes me stop.

Here's one part I question:
The warming has apparently stopped, however, and over the last year has actually seemed to from the 1998 temperature. GW advocates have no explanation for this.

OK...I had trouble parsing this. I thought maybe a link would help clear up what Merc wrote. How the heck am I supposed to research such a vague and garbled claim? If it's true (whatever it he wrote), then supporting it should take about 15 seconds.

And claims need to be defended. If I don't support a claim, be sure to call me on it. I try to be pretty careful to support my posts. If I don't, ask me. If I can't support it, you win.

And another thing, you'll rarely see me regurgipost.

[Merc]

Demand? Hardly. It was a request. Call it what you like. I'm asking for it. Don't like it? I couldn't care less. Go ahead and whine some more about my reasonable requests for supporting evidence.

If Merc doesn't care to support his claims, then what the heck is the point of posting? If he's trying to convince anyone, it's not working. Except maybe with you.



Too bad. Pound salt. You're going to see a lot of it here from now on. Keep crying about it and see if it makes me stop.

Here's one part I question:


OK...I had trouble parsing this. I thought maybe a link would help clear up what Merc wrote. How the heck am I supposed to research such a vague and garbled claim? If it's true (whatever it he wrote), then supporting it should take about 15 seconds.

And claims need to be defended. If I don't support a claim, be sure to call me on it. I try to be pretty careful to support my posts. If I don't, ask me. If I can't support it, you win.

And another thing, you'll rarely see me regurgipost.

temperatures have seemed to decrease from the 1998 temperature often cited. We had a long drawn out discussion on this a week back.

I posted an article. Period. I do not need to source and article although if you go to the original there are links. You can disagree with the article, that is fine, but I am assuming that you remember past posts. If not then feel free to search on my nic and find the sources and links provided earlier.

I cannot write a fully sourced dissertation every time I link a new article. My take is that if the reader wishes to know sources on a long, drawn out, multithreaded subject they'll have to do a bit of the legwork themselves. Sorry. None of us has time to relink all past source data in every new post.

Understandable if that isn't good enough. Feel free to link interesting articles and such without sources. Most articles linked have several sources embedded that the reader can peruse at their leisure. Also, there are several sources and links in my past posts re. GWing and a search on my nic, as stated, will lead you right to them.

If I have time I'll dig up those links for you but I have been going 18 hours a day this week between work, side -business and the toddler. I will try and and honor your request when things slow down a little.

[K-Gun]

Again with the demand for cites.

http://climatechangedaily.com

Google.

Merc's not dumping stuff in a post that's never been seen around here. That "links please" demand is getting old.

oh really, its ****ing "old" to ask him to substantiate a claim that all of our ****ing country will be under ice in 20-50 years?

sure guy.

[K-Gun]

temperatures have seemed to decrease from the 1998 temperature often cited. We had a long drawn out discussion on this a week back.

I posted an article. Period. I do not need to source and article although if you go to the original there are links. You can disagree with the article, that is fine, but I am assuming that you remember past posts. If not then feel free to search on my nic and find the sources and links provided earlier.

I cannot write a fully sourced dissertation every time I link a new article. My take is that if the reader wishes to know sources on a long, drawn out, multithreaded subject they'll have to do a bit of the legwork themselves. Sorry. None of us has time to relink all past source data in every new post.

Understandable if that isn't good enough. Feel free to link interesting articles and such without sources. Most articles linked have several sources embedded that the reader can peruse at their leisure. Also, there are several sources and links in my past posts re. GWing and a search on my nic, as stated, will lead you right to them.

If I have time I'll dig up those links for you but I have been going 18 hours a day this week between work, side -business and the toddler. I will try and and honor your request when things slow down a little.

i see, you don't have time to show me how we'll be under ice in the next few decades. that's almost "ignore feature" worthy.

[Merc]

oh really, its ****ing "old" to ask him to substantiate a claim that all of our ****ing country will be under ice in 20-50 years?

sure guy.

I'm sorry but please point out to me where I said we'd be under ice in 20 years, or even 1,000 years. That is the author's assertion, not mine. I found the article interesting and so I posted it. It doesn't mean I agree with the whole thing. Chill out (get it K-Gun. LOL)

[K-Gun]

I'm sorry but please point out to me where I said we'd be under ice in 20 years, or even 1,000 years. That is the author's assertion, not mine. I found the article interesting and so I posted it. It doesn't mean I agree with the whole thing. Chill out (get it K-Gun. LOL)

Oh, I see. When you posted this, you were just using an argument that you don't agree with to claim you are right:

Unlike the warmlings, he doesn't say that it is going to happen but I wish that the warmlings would at least look at the data and not dismiss it out of hand. The one sentence that stands out is this little tidbit of reality is this one:

The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years. The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue.

The warmlings whole preimise is that we are the earth is to warm, based on who knows what standard, but the ugly reality is warmer is better than colder and colder is the norm. Only wacky environmentalist warmlings would complain about living in a warm, intergalacial period and demand we stop it! LMAO.

So you're whole premise "The warmlings are wrong" is based on an argument that you don't believe. That's classy.

How about this, wikipedia gives evidence that the current interglacial may last another 16,000 years. Gees, let's think this one out, it may be tough. If the sun doesn't cause ice to cover the globe anytime soon, then it just may be possible for man made warming to cause a "super-glacial" period. Not that I'm claiming that this proves it will happen, I'll leave that type of spurious logic to you.

[sukie]

I just think he Warmlings have closed the book on possibilities.

[ticatfan3]

The warmlings have bet the farm on this. No evidence real or not will change their minds. They have gone to far and can't come back.

[K-Gun]

The warmlings have bet the farm on this. No evidence real or not will change their minds. They have gone to far and can't come back.

i don't have much of an opinion, or even an interest in global warming.

but when people start talking about half the world being covered in ice, i'm real ****ing interested.

[Merc]

i don't have much of an opinion, or even an interest in global warming.

but when people start talking about half the world being covered in ice, i'm real ****ing interested.

K-Gun the world was half covered in ice just the blink of an eye ago, in geologic time. A very strong theory states that man crossed to N. America over the ice covering the Bering Straights. Another theory is that the earth was completely encased in ice for a few million years about 1/2-3/4 of a billion years ago. Google ice ball earth.

Warmlings think in decades and the earth works in 100,000's of years. Blizzards in late April are nothing but 90 degree days in summer brings the warmlings out screaming end times. Ridiculous behavior.

The fact of the matter is that the earth goes through ice periods and warming periods. We do not have the power to change the earth's cycles. We are gnats on a dog's ass. Possibly bothersome but not all that important.

Another ice age will come. That is almost beyond question. Don't sweat it because you won't see it and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it anyways.

[35Pete]

K-Gun the world was half covered in ice just the blink of an eye ago, in geologic time. A very strong theory states that man crossed to N. America over the ice covering the Bering Straights. Another theory is that the earth was completely encased in ice for a few million years about 1/2-3/4 of a billion years ago. Google ice ball earth.

Warmlings think in decades and the earth works in 100,000's of years. Blizzards in late April are nothing but 90 degree days in summer brings the warmlings out screaming end times. Ridiculous behavior.

The fact of the matter is that the earth goes through ice periods and warming periods. We do not have the power to change the earth's cycles. We are gnats on a dog's ass. Possibly bothersome but not all that important.

Another ice age will come. That is almost beyond question. Don't sweat it because you won't see it and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it anyways.

Exactly. We're sampling a snapshot of an entire film, based on highly inexact science, and making a declaration of doom and gloom. Toss in Kyoto, which is basically a "back to the good old days of 1902 for industry" in the exempted nations, and you give every corporation in America license to move offshore to be "competitive". Meanwhile, just look at the social control, and ultimately the power that global warming can yield over your lives if this unproven drivel ever becomes "truth".

There's "truth", then there's reality. Problem is that people often don't know the difference.

[Merc]

Exactly. We're sampling a snapshot of an entire film, based on highly inexact science, and making a declaration of doom and gloom. Toss in Kyoto, which is basically a "back to the good old days of 1902 for industry" in the exempted nations, and you give every corporation in America license to move offshore to be "competitive". Meanwhile, just look at the social control, and ultimately the power that global warming can yield over your lives if this unproven drivel ever becomes "truth".

There's "truth", then there's reality. Problem is that people often don't know the difference.

For once I am on board with your conspiracy theories Pete. You are spot on with the above. Well said and concisely put.