Decade long ice age predicted as sun 'hibernates' in 2030

[s_bushido]

Is it misinformation if you don't believe it to be true?

Her report dealt with the goings-on in the sun, not its effects on the planet. People running with the "little ice age" idea, simply because that was the last time we saw solar behavior like this, are spreading misinformation.

[Crissi]

Geology is pretty much just rocks, geography is a more general look at earth and its environments. I think both geology and climatology fall under geography's rather broad umbrella.

Its actually more the opposite. Geography can be applied to just about anything, and so it can be a subset of anything. You can do the geography of businesses, but I wouldnt say business falls under geography umbrella When looking at specific subjects like global warming, I feel its better to address it as a specific subject instead of an offshoot of a broad subject. Like I said, Im mini anal

[Crispin]

Getting a liiiittle skepctical when someone predicts the weather 2 weeks ahead, predicting a decade long ice age 15 years from now on seems pretty fucking bold, it doesnt help that the previous one was 300 years ago, I could have been sold if this was happening every 10 years the last century or something like that.

[Kujako]

Or that global warming alarmists are still trying to propagate their lies about climate change?

So if I follow your logic here... when the media lies about a scientists report, its really the truth, because scientists are lying?

[PC2]

This would make it worse because we would burn less and solar panels would be less effective. CO2 would continue to build up and once the rays started shining again we would heat up at twice or three times the rate

Which is why there is a lot of effort going towards renewable innovation and energy. We are not sitting on our hands.

[Malachi256]

Getting a liiiittle skepctical when someone predicts the weather 2 weeks ahead, predicting a decade long ice age 15 years from now on seems pretty fucking bold, it doesnt help that the previous one was 300 years ago, I could have been sold if this was happening every 10 years the last century or something like that.

When it comes to the big-picture disciplines like macroeconomics and global climate, I tend to view the predictions with a huge amount of skepticism. It really comes off to me as a lottery - if we have dozens of professionals all throwing predictions out in various media every few months, years from now someone will be right and we can get excited about that......

[s_bushido]

So if I follow your logic here... when the media lies about a scientists report, its really the truth, because scientists are lying?

The Mainstream Media: Only trustworthy when it's telling us what we want to hear. Conveniently enough, that goes for scientists too... <.<

[Dhrizzle]

Geography can be applied to just about everything, and so it can be a subset of anything.

So if I follow your logic here... when the media lies about a scientists report, its really the truth, because scientists are lying?

This thread is getting a little too zen.

[Crissi]

This thread is getting a little too zen.

...dont mind me, Im currently having the flu! This my world is all like "dude...DUDE" right now.

[Faroth]

Not sure what your point is. If reduced solar radiation offsets anthropogenic warming factors, leading to overall cooling, it's just going to be a temporary lull in the overall warming trend, which will pretty rapidly get offset when the solar cycle shifts back up, leading to a rapid warming spike.

It isn't a change in the long-term trend, it's a short-term fluctuation. At best. Even if the research holds up, and from what I gather, there's still some debate over her conclusions.

I dunno about it being a temporary lull, Endus. If we had an ice age... an ice decade... that's going to wreak havoc on food supplies and I'd wager a pretty heavy hit to the world population as a result. Just the reduction of people who survive might put things back on course to square things out a bit as there would be less using just stuff in general.

Nature, even on a cosmic level, seems to balance the scales, eh? >_>


Personally I've always figured we'd get hit with a massive ice age out of nowhere riiiiight when we feel we've got global warming under control and moving in the right direction. Basis of this theory is nothing more than "Nature says screw you, sucka!"

Either that or we'll solve global warming to the satisfaction of all scientists and then a half dozen volcanoes will go MEGA'SPLODE and pump more gases into the air than we JUST recovered from. Again because nature don't care.

(Take this post with a grain of salt. It's more based on the "oh so very scientific law of Murphy" than anything else. :P)

[ringpriest]

This already came up on this forum back in August. This iteration is just denialist clickbait from a "news" site that has stories like: "Mars mystery: 'Alien peering out of cave' found in NASA Red Planet picture" (which says a great deal about what the DailyExpress thinks about deniers' mental abilities). I'm going to repeat what I said then (with updated graph, because the deniers have brought this up enough that Skeptical Science has an up to date page covering it):

Sheer nonsense. There's one paper that's been presented on solar magnetic activity cycles which predicts at 40% and 80% reduction in sunspots in the next two solar activity cycles:

A comprehensive spectral analysis of both the solar background magnetic field (SBMF) in cycles 21-23 and the sunspot magnetic field in cycle 23 reported in our recent paper showed the presence of two principal components (PCs) of SBMF having opposite polarity, e.g., originating in the northern and southern hemispheres, respectively. Over a duration of one solar cycle, both waves are found to travel with an increasing phase shift toward the northern hemisphere in odd cycles 21 and 23 and to the southern hemisphere in even cycle 22. These waves were linked to solar dynamo waves assumed to form in different layers of the solar interior. In this paper, for the first time, the PCs of SBMF in cycles 21-23 are analyzed with the symbolic regression technique using Hamiltonian principles, allowing us to uncover the underlying mathematical laws governing these complex waves in the SBMF presented by PCs and to extrapolate these PCs to cycles 24-26. The PCs predicted for cycle 24 very closely fit (with an accuracy better than 98%) the PCs derived from the SBMF observations in this cycle. This approach also predicts a strong reduction of the SBMF in cycles 25 and 26 and, thus, a reduction of the resulting solar activity. This decrease is accompanied by an increasing phase shift between the two predicted PCs (magnetic waves) in cycle 25 leading to their full separation into the opposite hemispheres in cycle 26. The variations of the modulus summary of the two PCs in SBMF reveals a remarkable resemblance to the average number of sunspots in cycles 21-24 and to predictions of reduced sunspot numbers compared to cycle 24: 80% in cycle 25 and 40% in cycle 26.

As best as I can tell, some irresponsible journalist first conflated predicted sunspot count with total solar irradiance, and then averaged the 80% and 40% predictions (because hey, math is fun, who cares if it's correct).

Even if we do end up with a new "Maunder Minimum" (itself not a claim really supported by the paper, much less by evidence) it's effect on global warming would look more like this:

[Deleted]

You know the express have more articles about the end of the world than any other rag out there? There website is pure click bait articles from start to finish. Even if there is a chance this could be true the express will spin that story so far out of truth for web site hits its not even funny. You may as well join the tin foil hat wearers on 3rdphase if you sit and read the express.

[Trassk]

Not sure what your point is. If reduced solar radiation offsets anthropogenic warming factors, leading to overall cooling, it's just going to be a temporary lull in the overall warming trend, which will pretty rapidly get offset when the solar cycle shifts back up, leading to a rapid warming spike.

It isn't a change in the long-term trend, it's a short-term fluctuation. At best. Even if the research holds up, and from what I gather, there's still some debate over her conclusions.

if anything the possibility of there being a dip in solar radiation over that 10 year period will most likely not effect the heat or plunge us into an iceage, use to the global warming factors already effecting it.

[Shige]

The "climate change" - "global warming" that creates drama has got nothing to do with the sun. The possibility of the sun hibernating would affect our climate, but it isn't the climate change Earth is going through.

I find it hilarious that people actually could misunderstand something like this just to say "Earth is gonna get cold, therefore climate change is a hoax"

[Dhrizzle]

I dunno about it being a temporary lull, Endus. If we had an ice age... an ice decade... that's going to wreak havoc on food supplies and I'd wager a pretty heavy hit to the world population as a result. Just the reduction of people who survive might put things back on course to square things out a bit as there would be less using just stuff in general.

Nature, even on a cosmic level, seems to balance the scales, eh? >_>

There'll be some crazy weather with us going from too hot to too cold to even more too hot in that decade, especially if we pump even more CO2 into the atmosphere to keep warm during the ice age.

Personally I've always figured we'd get hit with a massive ice age out of nowhere riiiiight when we feel we've got global warming under control and moving in the right direction. Basis of this theory is nothing more than "Nature says screw you, sucka!"

I'm expecting the inevitable super-meteor extinction event to neatly cap the inevitable super-volcano extinction event and the two will cancel each other out.

Either that or we'll solve global warming to the satisfaction of all scientists and then a half dozen volcanoes will go MEGA'SPLODE and pump more gases into the air than we JUST recovered from. Again because nature don't care.

(Take this post with a grain of salt. It's more based on the "oh so very scientific law of Murphy" than anything else. :P)

Would a denser, warmer atmosphere make it easier for us all to live on dirigibles at a height where the climate is more tolerable?

[Kujako]

The "climate change" - "global warming" that creates drama has got nothing to do with the sun. The possibility of the sun hibernating would affect our climate, but it isn't the climate change Earth is going through.

I find it hilarious that people actually could misunderstand something like this just to say "Earth is gonna get cold, therefore climate change is a hoax"

You have it backwards, they start with "climate change is a hoax, cause reasons" and go from there.

[Ripster42]

I really don't understand why people don't get infracted for claiming that scientists are perpetrating a global warming hoax. Conspiracy theories are against the forum ToS.

[endersblade]

Good, I love the winter.

[TwoNineMarine]

WINTER IS COMING












Sorry. Felt right.

[Kujako]

Conspiracy theories are against the forum ToS.

That's just what they WANT you to believe!