Earth heading for 'mini ice age' in just 15 years, scientists say
LINK :
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2015/07/11/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-in-just-15-years-scientists-say/2751436649025/
By Doug G. Ware | Updated July 11, 2015 at 5:36 PM
LLANDUDNO, Wales, July 11 (UPI) -- Solar scientists, armed with the best data yet regarding the activities of the sun, say the Earth is headed for a "mini ice age" in just 15 years -- something that hasn't happened for three centuries.
Professor Valentina Zharkova, of the University of Northumbria, presented the findings at the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales this week, Britain's Independent reported Saturday .
Researchers, saying they understand solar cycles better than ever, predict that the sun's normal activity will decrease by 60 percent around 2030 -- triggering the "mini ice age" that could last for a decade. The last time the Earth was hit by such a lull in solar activity happened 300 years ago, during the Maunder Minimum, which lasted from 1645 to 1715.
Scientists say there are magnetic waves in the sun's interior that fluctuate between the body's northern and southern hemispheres, resulting in various solar conditions over a period of 10 to 12 years. Based on that data, researchers say they are now better able to anticipate the sun's activity -- which has led to the Zharkova team's prediction.
"Combining both [magnetic] waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 percent," Zharkova said.
If the "mini ice age" does indeed arrive, scientists say it will be accompanied by bitter cold winters -- frigid enough to cause rivers, like the Thames in London, to freeze over.
Like Us on Facebook for more stories from UPI.comTags
Who is online
420 visitors
The difference between astronomy and climatology is that the former is a well established science while the latter is only a study , not yet developed enough to make predictions . That is why climatologists trumpet headlines about "the consensus" , not about science facts . But here is an article about some scientists not agreeing with "the consensus" . Since that is only a popularity contest and not science there should be little doubt in your mind about which one has the ability to predict the future .
Good find Petey. And I share Mike's analysis. This will be a political hot potato, since there is nothing the politicians can use here to further their careers.
From my POV the sun is sexist , not racist ... at least if judged by Al Gore .
They must have been watching the movie "The Day After Tomorrow".
These are scientists Buzz . They are unmoved by fiction . Climatologists are NOT scientists but half of the political spectrum accepts their word as gospel . You can thank Al Gore for that .
You may have to hold onto it for more than a decade ...
The best info I can give you is from the article itself but interpreting that in terms of temperature is difficult :
Is it time for a song from "Three Dog Night" ?
Al Gore actually hates women ... he has been that way ever since Tipper dropped him for losing the presidency .
Very interesting article... also posted in depth here:
I am reading through the comments and it's kind of like apples and cucumbers. Climate change has nada to do with this. If this actually happens, it could actually be good for the earth.
Petey's first comment is well put:
And though I fall on the side of caution and believe that we should take steps to reduce our impact on the earth in all ways, I also agree with Petey that this will happen, while the other may happen.
The way I look at this is that we can completely ignore the CO2 induced climate change hypothesis for the foreseeable future . That will have too small an effect by 2029 to even bother with . Then by 2030 any memory of the former climate heat hysteria will be inundated by freezing cold temperatures . Those will last about a decade . Maybe after that the confusion over AGW will have been sorted out .
But in the meantime Hillary has already committed herself to making AGW a priority . How long will it take her to change her position ? If she doesn't change how much of the US treasury can she pour down the black hole of fiscal irresponsibility ? Or can the US congress restrain her actions much ?
I'm doing science, not politics here.
Sometimes fiction can predict reality - for example, you might have discounted the novels of Jules Verne and H.G.Wells as being ridiculous fantasies had you lived in their time.
I used to really enjoy watching the series "The West Wing" when it was first broadcast. I have watched the series again recently and am amazed at how many things were predicted by the authors/screenwriters.
I think it's a mistake to just pooh-pooh fiction. But then it seems to me that much of what both Gore and the climatologists have to say just might be considered fiction as well.
When there is science to turn to it is best to avoid both fiction and the politics based on it .
Since the advent of climatology becoming a public issue you are nearly alone in that respect . Fortunately another woman has joined you in that endeavor . She authored the paper :
...
I hope her voice is enough to drown out the leftist propaganda coming from Hillary or from Bernie ...
Pretty sad. Only one in every twelve comments thus far on this seed care to show any interest in the science presented. I'm going to take a stab at it and bet that Perrie knows the Earth is round and orbits the sun. That, or she's the only one that cares to know.
I do know that Fly.
I like the science of this article, hence why I investigated more. What I don't like is the politics that is being intertwined with it.
On the other hand, if you want to see some really cool (or hot) suns....
Politics has been intertwined with this topic since Al Gore decided to intertwine it . Blame him . Also blame the entire climatology community which has proclaimed prematurely that they are doing science when the main evidence they are presenting is "a consensus" . That is not science . That is a popularity contest .
And as I have explained many times before, I have never gotten into the politics of this topic, but the actual science involved. When you had I started having this discussion years ago, I was discussion the ice core studies, sans politics.
And it is your article and so I would think you would be more about the science.
Yet many people think that because the Northeast had a very cold winter means that there is no climate change, totally disregarding that they had record heat and drought in the west, not fully understanding that the jet stream and ocean temps affect each other. This is how poor most people's understanding of earth science is.
The science of this is pretty right on as far as I can tell. Solar minimums also accounted for the extremely cold winters around the turn of the century 1900 or so. although not as minimum as they are talking for this coming one. The last time the Thames froze over. If I remember correctly the first decade of the 20th century was also the last time icebergs were seen on Long Island Sound.
I don't think people understand just how cold the beginnings of the last century was. Vermont would see 6 to 8 feet of snow every year 16 feet in the hard years.
Proven science. I only hope during this coming minimum we don't get an X blast also. (the other thing that happens with solar minimums) That would be all we need, ice block for a northern hemisphere and all our electrics fried.
A lotta people will be moving south for the summers...
Thank you NWM......
Refreshing to see a another person that sees attempted science for what it is rather than grasping and using politicized science for what it isn't. If it weren't for politics, we'd be pretty successful as a species.
Well it fits with what was predicted in 2006 ....
By 2022 we will have the lowest solar activity in 100 years...
No doubt about the politics, Poly = many; and we know what ticks are... (greasy little bloodsuckers)...
Nicely done.... Poly + tics. How fitting!
The question becomes how much blood can be removed from the host without killing it. I don't know about you, but I'm feeling pretty anemic as is....
Well, this could get "interesting"! Maybe KY will get enough snow plows to do some good...
Great article, Petey!
Are you saying yours is better ? Frankly I'm not seeing it ...
That is a rather uncalled for insulting remark. Care to explain?
You were talking about climatology in your intro but then your discussion seqwayed into weather . When you mention 2 extreme points of the weather spectrum that is not a discussion of climate . Climate would be a discussion about the average between weather points . When you average the northeast cold with Cali's heat you get a moderate average . THAT is what climate is about ...
You're not entirely right Petey. When it comes to an exact science I agree with you, but if it is not an exact science, or one in which there have not been many years of experience, then a little bit of conjecture is going to come into it. After all, I think it takes a little imagination to develop something new. Do not then disparage fiction, but I agree that politics can only be a distraction.
Thanks for the link NWM . It's good to know that NASA [parts of it] are in agreement with these predictions .
No I am talking climate, not weather, although you can't discuss one without the other. And when discussing climate you don't average. What you look for is changes in patterns. When there is a huge shift in the jet stream, you are looking for the causes. In this case it has to do with ocean temps. You are also looking for severity of weather. Drought in the west, snowy cold winters in the east. Record rainfall. All of these things go into how climates change, by how weather in regions change.
And still no need to be rude. Inquire and I would be glad to explain.
Of course you do . That is what climate is ... the average , all over the planet and throughout the year . Just because you lack statistical sophistication doesn't mean you can make shit up based on your feelings .
I don't want your explanation . You don't know what you're talking about . I don't care how many classes you have taught in grade school . You have no idea what climate is . But you are easily swayed by BS propaganda . CO2 levels have NOTHING to do with weather extremes no matter how loudly the climate "community" usurps another position to desperately prove their point .
Definition of climate:
a region with particular weather patterns or conditions
: the usual weather conditions in a particular place or region
Not an average for the whole earth, although that can be used for some studies.
First of all, don't ask me to inquire about a science article, and then when I do, you get nasty. You were the one who brought politics into this not me. I didn't bring into this discussion climate change. I brought up earth science. I never mentioned CO2, so stop putting words into my mouth. What I am talking about is this:
And for your information, I have a degree in earth science.
SUHHHHHMACK!!!!!!!
I've got a question, I pretty much figure that Perrie knows the answer already but I would like to hear her answer also.
During the ice age, the the northern two fifths of the planet was buried under ice sheets, what was happening on the other three fifths of the planet?
I already know the accepted scientific answer, just looking for a comparison of the differences in the two arguments given the answer....
Petey's and Perrie"s
NWM,
Is this a trick question?
There were at least 5 major ice ages. Which one are you referring to?
Climate from the POV of a climatologist is strictly about global averages taken across an entire year . Since the topic is the earth's temperature , the dictionary definition is of no use . I brought CO2 into this discussion because it is central to the AGW argument . If you don't want to talk about climatology then ignore what I am saying .
In any case there are major effects and minor effects on the earth's average temperature . The most major effect is that of the sun's contribution . It swamps any minor effects like cooling blocks due to greenhouse gasses . It also swamps any minor effects like the jet stream ...
Chuckle, I forgot to mention that I was referring to the last one....
The others are too far in the past to be meaningful in this context.
i do not have a degree in Earth Sciences like Perrie . Therefore the best I can do inre to the question is to guess [I don't feel like googling it] . I would guess that the lower 3/5 of the planet remained relatively ice free . I think it might have something to do with the free flowing seawater in that region ...
New Science Contradicts Climate Alarmists Predictions of Global Warming Doom
From my POV it is simpler to deal with mild cooling than many other changes . For example putting a coating of soot over the arctic regions would greatly add to improved solar heat absorption in that snow bound region ...
Here is what actual science has to say about future climate predictions . Greenhouse gases are a minor effect . The major effect is solar activity . In only 15 years the planet is due for a mini ice age . It has happened in the past and it will happen again . But feel free to express the POV of the big Chickens of climatology who obsess over only CO2 as the ONLY factor that matters .