Scientists predict 'mini ice age' by 2030

[lost_shaman]

2 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

I would say that is right-wing propaganda bs.  I can reproduce Oklhoma's warming without making adjustments to the data AND my reproductions predict NASA's temps and vice versa.  That would not be possible if NASA were deliberately skewing the results.

Even IF you were 100% correct about Oklahoma... What does Oklahoma's 'weather' have to do with Global Climate trends?

[Doug1029]

10 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Even IF you were 100% correct about Oklahoma... What does Oklahoma's 'weather' have to do with Global Climate trends?

Read the sentence again.  I can reproduce the global figures using Oklahoma's data.  That would be impossible if there wasn't a correlation between the two.  So what does Oklahoma's weather have to do with global temps?  Quite a bit.

Doug

[Doug1029]

4 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

What does Oklahoma's 'weather' have to do with Global Climate trends?

Just about everything.  You're working under the assumption of independence, that weather in one place does not influence and is not influenced by weather in another place.  BUT:  the best predictor of weather in one town is the weather in the next town over.  They are not independent.  The whole world is linked together.

Oklahoma conveniently predicts world weather only because it is in an area that is dry, but not too dry.  If it were wetter, the warming signal would be so weak we couldn't find it.  And if it were dryer, the warming signal would drown out the correlation with the rest of the world.  It just happens that we're in the Goldilocks Zone for measuring climate change.

Doug

 

[Doug1029]

On 12/30/2017 at 1:19 PM, Truthseeker007 said:

Try telling that to the global warming alarmist and or Al Gore.

One can easily estimate how much effect a cold sun would have on temps.  Just create a regression model using sunspots to predict temps.  Then set the sunspot count to zero and see what happens.  The answer is:  not much.  Things are a little colder, but by only three or four degrees.  One could also include things like [CO2] in that model, or anything else for which one could create a time-series.  Set the chosen variable to a constant (the average value is popular), then see what happens when it doesn't change.

That's how we determined how much effect people were having on climate:  create a model that uses [CO2] as a variable, then set it to a constant, like say, 315 ppm (the 1958 level).  Then calculate the temps with the [CO2] value held constant.

Doug

[Glockornothing]

On ‎12‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 5:35 AM, UM-Bot said:

A new mathematical model of the Sun's magnetic activity has indicated that we may soon be in for a cold spell.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/314413/scientists-predict-mini-ice-age-by-2030

Sounds like it might get colder, if we would have used a mule load of US taxpayers money and stayed in that Paris scheme would we have averted this, or would we still have to buy warmer jackets and wool socks.

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, Glockornothing said:

Sounds like it might get colder, if we would have used a mule load of US taxpayers money and stayed in that Paris scheme would we have averted this, or would we still have to buy warmer jackets and wool socks.

The last time the solar cycle went to zero was in August 2009.  Temperatures that year rose very slightly (0.03 degrees).  The rise, though small, was steady, showing no influence from the solar cycle, or any other cycle, for that matter.  The next solar minimum will be in 2020/2021.  A slight cooling about that time would be no surprise.  But after that, they'll go back up again and we probably won't even notice.

IF:  a "cold sun" influences climate on earth, it will have to do it over a prolonged time span to have any effect.  We're talking years-to-centuries here.

The Little Ice Age was kicked off by four volcanic eruptions, sending the world into a volcanic winter.  At that same time, solar activity declined.  Increased snowfall as a result of sulphates in the atmosphere caused Arctic ice and snow to spread south, reflecting more incoming solar energy back into space.  After the atmosphere cleared, the temperature was slow to rebound because of the reduced solar output.

But this time:  the earth's snow line is quite a bit north of what it was in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.  It will not reflect as much energy back into space, thus the earth will stay warmer.  Unless we get several big volcanic eruptions about 2020, the reduction in solar output will not have the same effects it had last time.

Will the Thames feeze over by 2030?  Not unless they clean up the heat pollution and the Polar Vortex decides to spend the winter over London instead of Laborador.

 

And, no.  Our membership in the Paris Accords would have no particular effect on this, one way or the other.  It's future such disasters that we might be able to head off.  That, and the fact that we no longer have any input to the negotiations, that are reasons to lament our absence.

I'm wondering just how effective governments with their lip-service-and-no-action policies can be.  In this country, it is industry that is leading conversion efforts.

Doug

[Derek Willis]

The mini ice-age is predicted for 2030? I think many parts of the US would say it has already arrived!

[+DieChecker]

On 12/30/2017 at 8:19 AM, Doug1o29 said:

You are mistaking weather for climate. 

I think this has been true ALL over the map of deniers and alarmists. Really, it is amazing how every year we have "experts" going online, and on TV, who point at tornadoes, wildfires, or droughts, and scream, "Global WARMING!!!" 

On 12/31/2017 at 1:17 PM, Doug1o29 said:

The denialist argument is that the correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature is either spurious or doesn't exist at all.

In fact, CO2 concentration and temperature have a tendency to confound each other in models in which they are both used.  I believe this is what is leading to the confusion.

For those of a statistical bent:  partial analysis of variance.

Doug

I've looked at the data and agree that overall Global Temperatures are going up. I just don't think those people who go to the Media and scream like Chicken Little that the sky is falling are doing the science behind this any favors. The climate scientists who are putting the numbers forward should be going after idiots like Al Gore (who means well, but is simply a politician), and correcting their ignorant alarmist statements.

When we have these people making statements that in 5, 10, or 20 years, such and such (ie snow) will be a thing of the past... And then it doesn't happen, it is making things harder for the real scientists who are putting forward real data. It is when these self proclaimed experts (or worse... actual experts), make ill advised pronouncements that they hand the narrative back to the hardline deniers. It might be better that people like Al Gore had never promoted Global Warming, making ridiculous pronouncements.

[Doug1029]

52 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I think this has been true ALL over the map of deniers and alarmists. Really, it is amazing how every year we have "experts" going online, and on TV, who point at tornadoes, wildfires, or droughts, and scream, "Global WARMING!!!" 

I've looked at the data and agree that overall Global Temperatures are going up. I just don't think those people who go to the Media and scream like Chicken Little that the sky is falling are doing the science behind this any favors. The climate scientists who are putting the numbers forward should be going after idiots like Al Gore (who means well, but is simply a politician), and correcting their ignorant alarmist statements.

When we have these people making statements that in 5, 10, or 20 years, such and such (ie snow) will be a thing of the past... And then it doesn't happen, it is making things harder for the real scientists who are putting forward real data. It is when these self proclaimed experts (or worse... actual experts), make ill advised pronouncements that they hand the narrative back to the hardline deniers. It might be better that people like Al Gore had never promoted Global Warming, making ridiculous pronouncements.

Al Gore made the topic political.  We'd all be a lot better off if he hadn't done that.

Doug

[Awhis]

Global Warming will actually speed up this process. Increases in water due to glacier melt will make massive winter storms in the future. 

[+DieChecker]

On 1/15/2018 at 8:37 PM, Awhis said:

Global Warming will actually speed up this process. Increases in water due to glacier melt will make massive winter storms in the future. 

Depends. Global Warming could possibly increase snowfall to a larger percentage of the northern hemisphere, and that could possibly end up triggering an effect where sunlight was reflected more and allowed for a cooling in the north. However, since the north has consistently warmed, this is not likely to happen, IMHO. Unless the snow sticks around (As in months), it doesn't have a tremendous effect on the temperature.

I also do think "glacier melt" is way overused and way overstated. Antarctica (If I am remembering right) has actually gained ice mass over the last decade.

Edited January 18, 2018 by DieChecker