Article

2008-04-23 -Signs, Portents, and the Weather-

Ice Age Alert: Cancel previous Global Warming Alert

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2008-04-23 12:09|| || Front Page|| [10 views ] Top

#1 The Sun has a neglible effect on climate change? hmmmmm guess that puts all the blame on cow farts.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2008-04-23 12:46|| 2008-04-23 12:46|| Front Page Top

#2 It will still be Bush's fault, no matter what happens.

Posted by Rambler in California">Rambler in California 2008-04-23 12:50|| 2008-04-23 12:50|| Front Page Top

#3 a report in 2006 that showed the sun had a negligible effect on climate change.
-----------------------------------------------
That will read funny in about 250 million years.

Posted by Gomez Gromoter7489 2008-04-23 12:56|| 2008-04-23 12:56|| Front Page Top

#4 By then the earth won't have a climate - the sun will have eated it.

Posted by Gomez Gromoter7489 2008-04-23 12:57|| 2008-04-23 12:57|| Front Page Top

#5 This shows the pathetic ignorance and gullibility of the average science writer. Here's the theory:

An alternative theory of global warming is that a strong solar magnetic field, when there is plenty of sunspot activity, protects the Earth from cosmic rays, cutting cloud formation, but that when the field is weak during low sunspot activity the rays can penetrate into the lower atmosphere and cloud cover increases, cooling the surface.

Here's the supposed refutation:

The researchers wrote in the journal Nature that the sun's brightness varied by only 0.07 percent over 11-year sunspot cycles, and that that was far too little to account for the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.

This is confusing magentic field effects with luminosity, two different effects, measured differently, and the writer says the latter is a REFUTATION of the former?

Posted by ptah">ptah 2008-04-23 12:59|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2008-04-23 12:59|| Front Page Top

#6 Humans have a unique facility to adapt to different climates and geography. Therefore, it baffles me that some warn about impending doom, while others scramble for the bottled water.
We adapt ! To adapt is to react to the change, not soil your pants with worry.
Al Gore is a scam artist who sought and won the $ from Nobel. This has nothing to do with the earth nor humanity. It's fiction for profit.

Posted by wxjames 2008-04-23 13:27|| 2008-04-23 13:27|| Front Page Top

#7 #3: a report in 2006 that showed the sun had a negligible effect on climate change.

"A" report in 2006 said this. There have been about 30 reports since 2006 that refute that statement. There are correlations between sunspot activity and climate change going back 200 years. As for " NOAA said last week that last month was the warmest March on record. NOAA said last week that last month was the warmest March on record", I guess they didn't check out Minnesota and Wisconsin, or much of the northeastern US, where there was unprecedented cold and snowfall. As for NOAA, it, like NASA, has been caught several times manipulating data to ensure their precious funding won't be cut.

The sun provides 100% of the energy that keeps this ball of rock from being frozen solid. Carbon dioxide makes up 4% of the atmospheric greenhouse gasses, while water vapor makes up 95%. We don't understand half of what's going on in our atmosphere, and we're learning more and more every day. Most of what we're learning refutes the arrogant stand of "climate change" fearmongers. This guy challenges this group of idiots' golden nest egg - of course they're going to attack him.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2008-04-23 13:45|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2008-04-23 13:45|| Front Page Top

#8 ptah, You're spot on. Decrease Sun Spots = reduced magnetic field protection from cosmic rays. Increased cosmic rays entering Earths atmosphere = increased hygroscopic nuclei = increased cloud cover = increased reflection of solar radiation and cooling. What the hell does suns brightness have to do with it?

That's my former meteorologist career speaking.

Here is a riddle I bet would make sense to these Bozos.

Question: Why do more ducks fly north than in the winter?

Answer: Because the higher they fly the much.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2008-04-23 13:55|| 2008-04-23 13:55|| Front Page Top

#9 Old P: The National Geographic channel had scientists tracking Sun Spot activity for thousands of years by studying chemical makeup stalagmites from caves (Mineral tree rings so to speak). They could actually see proof of the correlation between low Sun Spot activity and the mini Ice Age from 1300 to 1850.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2008-04-23 14:01|| 2008-04-23 14:01|| Front Page Top

#10 Look up "Maunder minimum" on wikipedia.

Posted by Rambler in California">Rambler in California 2008-04-23 15:15|| 2008-04-23 15:15|| Front Page Top

#11 Something I've always suspected is that we will get hit with an Ice Age long before we have to worry about any warming. Just the way the universe works.

One reason is that ultimately, warming is easier to deal with. It comes with all sorts of benifits.(longer growing seasons anyone?) An Ice Age has no obvious solution that the tranzis can use to beat us over the head with.

Realisticly, if the glaciers return, we are going to have to expand southward. Look out Mexico. On the other hand, the falling sea levels will mean more exposed land to be used.

Either way, the Tranzi's will find themselves Overtaken By Events. As usual.

Am I channeling JOE again?

Posted by N guard 2008-04-23 15:24|| 2008-04-23 15:24|| Front Page Top

#12 Am I channeling JOE again?

If so, well done, you're at least decipherable with minimum effort.

Posted by Redneck Jim">Redneck Jim 2008-04-23 16:45|| 2008-04-23 16:45|| Front Page Top

#13 Global sea ice has increased by between 3 and 4 million square kilometers in less than a year. That's an awful lot of new ice in a very short period.

The irony here is that the Warmers, despite their apocalyptic rhetoric, believe climate changes slowly. There is evidence that cold periods like the Little Ice Age came on quickly, 5 to 10 years.

Posted by phil_b 2008-04-23 17:31|| 2008-04-23 17:31|| Front Page Top

#14 One blast of gamma rays from deep space and it's global frying for us terrafirmites.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2008-04-23 17:59|| 2008-04-23 17:59|| Front Page Top

#15 I am just aching for the the day when my lefty friends start warning me of impending global cooling.

Posted by Kelly 2008-04-23 18:03|| 2008-04-23 18:03|| Front Page Top

#16

And that tiny spot is an old cycle spot. So we haven't yet reached the bottom of the cycle.

In addition, per HadCRUT3 the global temp anomaly for March08 was .430, so what's NOAA looking at?

March anomaly:
'02 .607
'03 .422
'04 .510
'05 .493
'06 .385
'07 .441
'08 .430

Of course, this is one month. Look at the bottom graph at the link.

Posted by KBK 2008-04-23 19:14|| 2008-04-23 19:14|| Front Page Top

#17 The original article is much more interesting:

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.

Solves one problem: Wotan is coming. He doesn't care for competitors.

Posted by KBK 2008-04-23 19:29|| 2008-04-23 19:29|| Front Page Top

#18 Pretty soon, everyone living above the 45th parallel will be begging for our CO2. BWAHAHAHAHA

Posted by SteveS 2008-04-23 20:47|| 2008-04-23 20:47|| Front Page Top

#19 If this is true we need some sunspots, and soon. Otherwise we'll be paying people to idle their SUV's all day. And pray that enough CO2 might make a difference.

Posted by Helmuth, Speaking for Thusoling9307 2008-04-23 21:01|| 2008-04-23 21:01|| Front Page Top

#20 See also NEWSCIENTIST > SOLAR SYSTEM MAY GO HAYWIRE BEFORE SUN DIES. And, as per various simulations in a few 00 Milyuhn years, NOT 5.0+ Bilyuhn???

PLANET MERCURY - from the B52's "LOVE SHACK", to the THIRD SECRET OF FATIMA's "RIDERLESS WINGED HORSE" [Hoss]???

* "IN THE HOUSE OF THE RISING SUN" - song.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-04-23 21:48|| 2008-04-23 21:48|| Front Page Top

#21 My apricot tree has had nothing for 3 years.
This year it put out about 300 token flowers. In the meantime I keeps increasing it's mass.

Posted by 3dc 2008-04-23 22:13|| 2008-04-23 22:13|| Front Page Top

#22 Increased CO₂ (idling SUVs) won't help much. Methane is 1000 times more efficient in producing greenhouse effect. Burning wood and coal would help to increase carbon particles in the atmosphere which may hopefully drift to ice sheet areas and help trapping some heat for melting and evaporation. Though, water vapor is another greenhouse effect agent more efficient than CO₂, but has the tendency to condense on ice and thus increase its volume.

I am not looking forward to it. I'm a thermophile.

Posted by twobyfour 2008-04-23 22:41|| 2008-04-23 22:41|| Front Page Top

23:50 Neville Ebbung2859
23:20 SteveS
23:16 JosephMendiola
23:13 GK
23:12 Rambler in California
22:59 JosephMendiola
22:41 twobyfour
22:33 Sock Puppet of Texas
22:28 Sock Puppet of Texas
22:28 Frank G
22:27 Frank G
22:26 OldSpook
22:24 OldSpook
22:21 Sock Puppet of Texas
22:19 BA
22:15 BA
22:14 Iblis
22:13 3dc
22:11 Iblis
22:09 BA
22:07 mhw
22:07 OldSpook
22:05 Frank G
22:02 Frank G