deGrasse Tyson & Nye on Climate Change

[EldrickOnIce]

Well, the mini ice age coming by 2030 will slow global warming for a bit.

http://www.iflscience.com/environmen...i-ice-age-2030

We predict that this will lead to the properties of a 'Maunder minimum'," said Zharkova.

The Maunder minimum was a 70-year period between 1645 and 1715. The Sun produced barely any sunspots and the Earth experienced a mini ice age. Parts of northern Europe and the United States experienced uncharacteristically cold winters. The river Thames, flowing through London, even froze over for seven weeks and was passable by foot.

(this should have gone in this thread, so added)

[Vulcan]

I don't have any faith in the worlds ability to meaningfully cut green house gas emissions. Even if the west weans itself off oil Africa will burn it cheaply to bring themselves out of poverty and no one can really blame them.

Not picking on Africa but for the longest time I've believed that over population is one of our main problems. We may be able to feed our population for now but the overuse of our other resources puts us in a no win situation. As you hint at though, we can't really blame people for reproducing either.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Well, the mini ice age coming by 2030 will slow global warming for a bit.

http://www.iflscience.com/environmen...i-ice-age-2030

(this should have gone in this thread, so added)

Ughh its bad enough so many news sites post this story, but to see what was once a good site for science lovers continue this Ice age is coming story alive is truly sad. IFLS is such a sad page now.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...p-not-ice-age/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te...e_by_2030.html

[T@T]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Well, the mini ice age coming by 2030 will slow global warming for a bit.

http://www.iflscience.com/environmen...i-ice-age-2030



(this should have gone in this thread, so added)

Excuse me for not reading the link in full but we didn't have an ice age 11 years ago, or 22 years ago, 33 etc...why would we have one now?

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by T@T

Excuse me for not reading the link in full but we didn't have an ice age 11 years ago, or 22 years ago, 33 etc...why would we have one now?

It's not that long dude, and I don't understand it enough to explain something I don't fully understand.

And it's only been reported by one scientist and hasn't been peer evaluated yet so it might be a little early for them to be jumping on it, but the crux of the argument is that in 2022 the sun will enter a period that hasn't been seen since the mini ice age that started in 1670.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by T@T

Excuse me for not reading the link in full but we didn't have an ice age 11 years ago, or 22 years ago, 33 etc...why would we have one now?

The gist of it is there is more gonig on than 11 year cycles.

Many solar physicists have put the cause of the solar cycle down to a dynamo caused by convecting fluid deep within the Sun. Now, Zharkova and her colleagues have found that adding a second dynamo, close to the surface, completes the picture with surprising accuracy....

Looking ahead to the next solar cycles, the model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

But it's been pretty well canvassed that that doesn't produce anything you could rationally call a "mini ice age", hasn't it? Sure, it can affect the jet stream and thereby you could get a long period where arctic air is being pushed farther south than usual but it's not a global temperature cooling. It probably won't even affect most of the planet. Also my understanding is that this is mostly an argument based on correlation (i.e. "this happened in the 1600s) when the atmosphere was pretty different than it is today - not the least of which differences would be a bunch of volcanic ash in the atmosphere.

[Fuzz]

In fairness, the scientists are saying the sun will be in a similar state as during the little ice age, not that the planet will be. But hey, media has a history of misrepresenting what scientists say.

How the planet reacts will be an interesting thing to observe, and should give us a lot more information on exactly how much effect solar conditions have on Earth.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Right, and the state of the sun has very little impact on Earth's global climate - if there's any significant impact at all it would be regional.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Right, and the state of the sun has very little impact on Earth's global climate - if there's any significant impact at all it would be regional.

Define very little, variations in the solar cycle affect the surface temperature of the earth by up to +-0.1C between the mean and the peak.

But this report suggests that when these 2 waves fall perfectly out of phase they will cancel each other out. It supposedly will produce changes well beyond the usual solar cycle but nobody really has a clue how other then the fact the last time these waves supposedly aligned it triggered a mini ice age.

So a whole lot of ifs and buts and maybes.

[troutman]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...i_ice_age.html

While changes in the Sun’s activity have a very marginal effect on global warming and/or cooling, human contributions to carbon dioxide in our atmosphere completely overwhelm the Sun’s influence. It’s like tapping on your brakes as your car plunges headlong into a brick wall at 100 kilometers per hour.

This new claim comes from a presentation at conference by Valentina Zharkova, a mathematician and scientist at Northumbria University. To be clear, she’s not predicting a 60 percent drop in the light and heat emitted by the Sun, but a drop in magnetic activity in the Sun. This has only a marginal effect on the Sun’s light/heat output. Also, if you listen to an interview with her on Radio New Zealand, you’ll hear some unusual claims, like the climates on other planets are changing due to the Sun—a red herring when it comes to climate change on Earth. She also admits at the end she doesn’t do atmospheric research, so the claim that lowered magnetic activity of the Sun can cause an ice age here on Earth is in my opinion shaky at best.

In a nutshell, the Sun goes through an 11-year cycle of magnetic activity. When it peaks, sunspots are more common. You might think that means less heat from the Sun, since sunspots are cooler and darker. But they have bright rims (called faculae) that more than make up for the cooler interior regions. So, when solar activity is high, and sunspots abound, the Sun is actually very marginally warmer.


The sunspot cycle this go-round was weak, and may be weak in the next cycle as well. No one really knows. There has been research asking what would happen if it is weak next time and concludes it will have moderate localized effects—not global cooling. In fact, the very first line of the abstract of that paper is this:

Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming.

http://www.iflscience.com/environmen...global-warming

IFLScience has spoken to the researcher who started the furor: Valentina Zharkova. She announced the findings from her team's research on solar activity last week at the Royal Astronomical Society. She noted that her team didn't realize how much of an impact their research would have on the media, and that it was journalists (including ourselves) who picked up on the possible impact on the climate. However, Zharkova says that this is not a reason to dismiss this research or the predictions about the environment.

“We didn't mention anything about the weather change, but I would have to agree that possibly you can expect it,” she informed IFLScience.

The conditions during this next predicted minimum will still be chilly: “It will be cold, but it will not be this ice age when everything is freezing like in the Hollywood films,” Zharkova chuckled.

However, Zharkova ends with a word of warning: not about the cold but about humanity's attitude toward the environment during the minimum. We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening. “The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions,” Zharkova says. The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Thor

IFLS is such a sad page now.

This. Did you see the article they were pimping a few weeks ago about STD-detecting condoms?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by troutman

“We didn't mention anything about the weather change, but I would have to agree that possibly you can expect it,” she informed IFLScience.

The conditions during this next predicted minimum will still be chilly: “It will be cold, but it will not be this ice age when everything is freezing like in the Hollywood films,” Zharkova chuckled. “The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions,” Zharkova says. The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming.

See, but everything I've read on this subject (and I am no scientist) seems to contradict this. So once again I'm left wondering who to believe?

Need some precision here. Do we KNOW temperatures will drop noticeably? If not, what is the likelihood? Where, geographically, will they drop noticeably? England? Toronto? Calgary? Buenos Aires?

These kinds of vague pronouncements don't really seem helpful to me.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The gist of it is there is more gonig on than 11 year cycles.

Oh, OK thanks then. I still don't believe it though

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

As I just said I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.

This is why propaganda works, the common and incorrect assumption that you're being reasonable by taking a position "somewhere in the middle". So all you need to do to shift opinion is to spin the most unlikely crap and many will say, "Now wait a minute, the truth probably lies somewhere between the extremes...." - except that one side isn't extreme at all.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by jammies

This is why propaganda works, the common and incorrect assumption that you're being reasonable by taking a position "somewhere in the middle". So all you need to do to shift opinion is to spin the most unlikely crap and many will say, "Now wait a minute, the truth probably lies somewhere between the extremes...." - except that one side isn't extreme at all.

You're just part of the Round Earth Cult!

[jammies]

Bah, all the cool kids know the earth is an oblate sphere!

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by jammies

Bah, all the cool kids know the earth is an oblate sphere!

oblate spheroid, actually.

[Knut]

I went on Twitter last night / today and had some climate change debates. Dumb idea. Here are some snippets.

@Anan_VII: Once again a consensus does not = scientific proof. Are you too dumb to understand that? @aa_hesla @Slate

@Anan_VII: You believe manipulated data and a consensus = scientific proof. Sounds like your thinking is in critical condition. @aa_hesla

@baldeguy56: @Jonley_Grin @Anan_VII @aa_hesla @Slate Lost in drafts was link 2 UN official giving real reason behind scare
#Power
Will look 4 link

@Anan_VII: Climate Change is convenient term for all weather events. You have been manipulated into believing a lie @aa_hesla @baldeguy56 @Jonley_Grin

@ottpost: @aa_hesla @Anan_VII @baldeguy56 @Jonley_Grin "Peer Review" = Like-minded scientists reading each other's research and giving two thumbs up.

@Jonley_Grin: @Anan_VII @aa_hesla @baldeguy56 nothing but air pollution is killing people

Godwin'd :

@Jonley_Grin: @Anan_VII @aa_hesla @baldeguy56 It's all propaganda but Dr. Goebels promised it will be better when the population is reduced.

@baldeguy56: @Cgerm1 @aa_hesla @Anan_VII @Jonley_Grin Obama gave up so much 2 Chinese & not asked biggest global polluter for 1 thing! O also going 2 UN2

@Cgerm1: @Anan_VII @aa_hesla @Jonley_Grin @baldeguy56
Or causing food shortage by using corn for cars. Great idea

@Anan_VII: Do me a favor tomorrow and hug a tree @aa_hesla @Cgerm1 @baldeguy56

Here is where the science illiteracy kicks in.

@Jonley_Grin: @Anan_VII @aa_hesla @Cgerm1 @baldeguy56 Sun burns 7 ft. min.diameter. Backwards math how long ago was the sun too big for eartth to exist?

@SSNjl: @aa_hesla @Cgerm1 @Anan_VII When Co2 levels reach 560ppm Vegetation goes into Hyper Drive absorbing Co2 at amazing rates.

@SSNjl: @Cgerm1 @aa_hesla This whole thing started in UK. Thatcher tired of dealing W/ Coal Unions found a paper published in 1896 & Ran with it.

Other theories where the consensus is not believed.

@Cgerm1: @aa_hesla @SSNjl
Well there's evolution and big bang.

@Cgerm1: @aa_hesla @SSNjl
The more co2 more vegetation, eats up more co2.

Then a random Tangent about letting AIDS patients die instead of treating them.

@SSNjl: @aa_hesla Then no sense on trying to prolong life of aids patients... Just throwing that out there. We are Humane though. Aren't we?


@SSNjl: @aa_hesla @Cgerm1 Weyerhouser Plants 100's of thousands of trees every year... Did Native Americans do that?

@Cgerm1: @SSNjl @aa_hesla
Progressives are commies. Seems like a good match.

@jinx510: @aa_hesla @Cgerm1 @SSNjl California has hundreds of solar farm. Maybe that's why it's so hot and dry.

@CharlesVanCott: @SSNjl @Cgerm1 @aa_hesla Exporting liberalism may be the secret weapon we need to destroy enemies such as #Iran and #ISIS.




I know it's long. This all started with this tweet.

@aa_hesla: @Anan_VII @slate I used to think that. Then I updated my thinking based on scientific consensus. The argument should be how to fix it

[Thor]

Originally Posted by T@T

Excuse me for not reading the link in full but we didn't have an ice age 11 years ago, or 22 years ago, 33 etc...why would we have one now?

I just re-read the article, took me 17 seconds.

If you can't be bothered to read it, why bother having a conversation or even an opinion on the subject.