[N8 v2.0]

Scientist predicts 'mini Ice Age'

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- A Russian astronomer has predicted that Earth will experience a "mini Ice Age" in the middle of this century, caused by low solar activity.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory in St. Petersburg said Monday that temperatures will begin falling six or seven years from now, when global warming caused by increased solar activity in the 20th century reaches its peak, RIA Novosti reported.

The coldest period will occur 15 to 20 years after a major solar output decline between 2035 and 2045, Abdusamatov said.

Dramatic changes in the earth's surface temperatures are an ordinary phenomenon, not an anomaly, he said, and result from variations in the sun's energy output and ultraviolet radiation.

The Northern Hemisphere's most recent cool-down period occurred between 1645 and 1705. The resulting period, known as the Little Ice Age, left canals in the Netherlands frozen solid and forced people in Greenland to abandon their houses to glaciers, the scientist said.

 

[narlus]

so by the smily face, you are happy in that you see this as vindication against the LEFT WING CONSPIRACY that is global warming?

 

[Westy]

I for one prefer tol beleive a single Russian scientist.

Then we should be extremely concerned about using up all of our oil. Looks like we will need it to stay warm.

I just don't know why we don't use that cold fusion stuff that one dude came up with in the 80's.

 

[sanjuro]

Will Shreveport become a cool climate then?

 

[Changleen]

Actually we are at the bottom of the 11-15 year solar activity cycle right now, so where's the ice age?

 

[Silver]

That's how the debunking game works. An overwhelming majority of biologists and zoologists believe based on the evidence that Darwinism is correct, but one religious biochemist is enough to throw everything into doubt.

Climate scientists worried about global warming? Bah! I'll raise you one astronomer.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

That's how the debunking game works. An overwhelming majority of biologists and zoologists believe based on the evidence that Darwinism is correct, but one religious biochemist is enough to throw everything into doubt.

Climate scientists worried about global warming? Bah! I'll raise you one astronomer.

Don't forget the paleontologists, geneticists, micro-biologists, etc. for evolution. It's sort of like the climatologists, geologists, etc. that have come to concensus on global warming.

 

[urbaindk]

Don't forget the paleontologists, geneticists, micro-biologists, etc. for evolution. It's sort of like the climatologists, geologists, etc. that have come to concensus on global warming.

I thought we agreed that there is no concensus on global warming...

Ha ha, just yankin' yer chain.

 

[spincrazy]

My girlfriend's articles:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/051114_heat_waves.html

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/051122_allergy_rise.html

 

[N8 v2.0]

Will Shreveport become a cool climate then?

God I can only hope...

 

[ohio]

My girlfriend's articles:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/051114_heat_waves.html

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/051122_allergy_rise.html

Cool articles, but this caught my eye:
"With temperatures up to 30 percent higher than the seasonal average "

That statement needs some serious explanation. Besides the "up to" which is a statistical red flag, tempurature differentials can almost never be explained in terms of a percentage without grossly manipulating facts, because the scales don't start at the same zero, nor at a true zero. Example:
- Last years average temp was 32 F (or 0 C, or 273 K)
- This years average temp was 40 F (or 4.4 C, or 277.5 K)
- This year the tempurature was 25% higher in F, infinitely higher in C, and 1.6% higher in K

 

[The Amish]

Cool articles, but this caught my eye:
"With temperatures up to 30 percent higher than the seasonal average "

That statement needs some serious explanation. Besides the "up to" which is a statistical red flag, tempurature differentials can almost never be explained in terms of a percentage without grossly manipulating facts, because the scales don't start at the same zero, nor at a true zero. Example:
- Last years average temp was 32 F (or 0 C, or 273 K)
- This years average temp was 40 F (or 4.4 C, or 277.5 K)
- This year the tempurature was 25% higher in F, infinitely higher in C, and 1.6% higher in K

Heres your explanation, nothins constant. for all we know the worlds been 30% cooler than its supposed to be since people started keepin track and were just getting back to normal. Maybe the suns burning hotter than it used too, or just maybe you ate one to many twinkies and threw off the balance of everything. Only fools believe the worlds static

 

[Changleen]

Heres your explanation, nothins constant. for all we know the worlds been 30% cooler than its supposed to be since people started keepin track and were just getting back to normal. Maybe the suns burning hotter than it used too, or just maybe you ate one to many twinkies and threw off the balance of everything. Only fools believe the worlds static

Thanks for that Dr. Science.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Ive heard that a single volcanic eruption ala pompeii causes more global warning than humans at their current pace could cause in like 10,000 years or some such...

 

[Silver]

Heres your explanation, nothins constant. for all we know the worlds been 30% cooler than its supposed to be since people started keepin track and were just getting back to normal. Maybe the suns burning hotter than it used too, or just maybe you ate one to many twinkies and threw off the balance of everything. Only fools believe the worlds static

You missed the point of ohio's post even more spectacularly than usual.

Been drinking?

 

[The Amish]

Thanks for that Dr. Science.

Glad I could break it down for you

 

[Changleen]

Ive heard that a single volcanic eruption ala pompeii causes more global warning than humans at their current pace could cause in like 10,000 years or some such...

I checked that out, it's BS. It's an urban myth.

 

[BurlyShirley]

source?

I think I heard it on disc. channel.

 

[ohio]

Heres your explanation

Uh, you don't understand a word I just wrote, do you?

 

[The Amish]

All them there numbers are a bit hard on my impared thinky ya know.

 

[Wondermarmot]

Ive heard that a single volcanic eruption ala pompeii causes more global warning than humans at their current pace could cause in like 10,000 years or some such...

You bring up an intresting topic...part of this is true. Volcanos and such produce many times more CO2 and other gases than any other anthropogenic sources. That is how the earth developed its atmosphere. But the short term effect is that the increase of ash content in the air actually reduces the suns warming effects, causing earth to experince cooler temps. for a couple of years.

 

[Changleen]

source?

I think I heard it on disc. channel.

I asked a meterologist. Actually if you think about it it's pretty obvious. Think of all the smoke produced in all the cities across all the world everyday, then think back since the industrial revolution to all the crap we used to spew for the last two hundred years, day in day out. Hell, just think of the burning oil well after Gulf War 1 and then think of the amount of smoke and ash blasted out by even an large eruption. The volcano is impressivly large, but it's a tiny, tiny drop in the ocean compared to us.

 

[Wondermarmot]

I going to go ahead and have to disagree with you on that one. Mother nature is alot more effective at putting stuff into the air than we are. For example St. Helens back in 80 was big, but not that big on a volcanic eruption scale. It caused global cooling with the amount of material put into the atmosphere. I'm not arguing that we didn't put out a lot of crap during the industrial revolution, but I think you are underestimating our planet and what it is capable of.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I asked a meterologist .

Holy F***ing Sh**! A meteorologist? Hell. End of discussion. Those guys are ALWAYS right.

 

[Changleen]

I going to go ahead and have to disagree with you on that one. Mother nature is alot more effective at putting stuff into the air than we are. For example St. Helens back in 80 was big, but not that big on a volcanic eruption scale. It caused global cooling with the amount of material put into the atmosphere. I'm not arguing that we didn't put out a lot of crap during the industrial revolution, but I think you are underestimating our planet and what it is capable of.

Disagree all you want, you're wrong. I'll dig out the CO2 air content charts. They show quite definativly that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is the highest it's been for like 60,000 years.

 

[Changleen]

Holy F***ing Sh**! A meteorologist? Hell. End of discussion. Those guys are ALWAYS right.

Yeah yeah, ha ha. They do have to do a fair bit of training before they're allowed to try and predict the future behaviour of a massivly complex chaotic system.

 

[Changleen]

Here you go, I can't find the lovely graphs but here is the relevant quote:

The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr.

It's the highest it's been in 420,000 years. And if you've noticed we haven't exactly been living in high volcanic activity period.

 

[syadasti]

Here you go, I can't find the lovely graphs but here is the relevant quote:

It's the highest it's been in 420,000 years. And if you've noticed we haven't exactly been living in high volcanic activity period.

You'd have to do better than one indicator from one place in the world to show some solid evidence (though people have).

 

[Changleen]

OK, Here you go then, from Wikipedia:

The initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity; this was essential for a warm and stable climate conducive to life. Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year. Volcanic releases are about 1% of the amount which is released by human activities.

There are pretty graphs too.

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

 

[syadasti]

I was talking about the trend of CO2 (highest in 420kyr), not the volcano myth.

 

[Changleen]

I was talking about the trend of CO2, not the volcano myth.

Ah. I think the global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are reasonably constant, like oxygen, and unlike ozone.

 

[syadasti]

Ah. I think the global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are reasonably constant, like oxygen, and unlike ozone.

Try reading what you were quoting then

 

[syadasti]

.....

Trends
There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987)...The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. Pre-industrial Holocene levels

 

[Wondermarmot]

I am not arguing the fact that CO2 levels may be higher now than in the recent past. I just think it may be a good idea to take a step back and look at the big picture. There are countless variables that have effected the earths climate over its 4.6 billion year history. Its hard to belive we know everything about climate cycles from the 100 odd years we have been keeping recod of the weather. Some of these cycles take 100's of thousands of years or much longer to occur. If you want a fun research project look into how climate is effected by the variablity in suns output, orientation of the continents, and Milankovitch cycles. Just a few of the countless variables effecting the climate. I'm not saying your wrong, I just saying that there is alot more to it than just that.

 

[Changleen]

.....

Yeah it works the other way round dude, you're holding the carrot and waving the stick.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

You'd have to do better than one indicator from one place in the world to show some solid evidence (though people have).

The evidence of the CO2 levels comes from ice core drilling. It's pretty well established.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I am not arguing the fact that CO2 levels may be higher now than in the recent past. I just think it may be a good idea to take a step back and look at the big picture. There are countless variables that have effected the earths climate over its 4.6 billion year history. Its hard to belive we know everything about climate cycles from the 100 odd years we have been keeping recod of the weather. Some of these cycles take 100's of thousands of years or much longer to occur. If you want a fun research project look into how climate is effected by the variablity in suns output, orientation of the continents, and Milankovitch cycles. Just a few of the countless variables effecting the climate. I'm not saying your wrong, I just saying that there is alot more to it than just that.

The consensus is that CO2 levels are higher now than at any time. We have been keeping track of climate for about 150 years, that's true, but we do have ways of tracking climate from earlier periods, including drilling into ice cores and sea beds, etc.

Further, no one is disputing that there are tons of variables involved or saying that we know with 100% certainty this or that. What I will say is that the scientific consensus is that global warming is real, we are contributing to it, and it is a problem that should be addressed. You ignore that at all of our perils.

 

[syadasti]

The evidence of the CO2 levels comes from ice core drilling. It's pretty well established.

There are various other CO2 records and there is more than one site in the world to get them from. Making a conclusion from a single site would be meaningless.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

There are various other CO2 records and there is more than one site in the world to get them from. Making a conclusion from a single site would be meaningless.

That's correct, and they verify the ice core samples, which is the most accurate reading we can make. What's your point?

 

[syadasti]

That's correct, and they verify the ice core samples, which is the most accurate reading we can make. What's your point?

Chag only mentioned one sampling site as evidence which doesn't really prove his point.

You'd see a more valid pattern if it was a review study looking at cores from both Northern and Southern sites ice cores, tree ring sampling, marine sediments, fossils, and other CO2 indicators.