Mini Ice Age Coming?

[NotNow]

Interesting read:

Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/

Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade
Physicists say sunspot cycle is 'going into hibernation'

By Lewis Page

Posted in Science, 14th June 2011 17:00 GMT

Free whitepaper â€" Physical Security in Mission Critical Facilities

What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth â€" far from facing a global warming problem â€" is actually headed into a mini Ice Age.


Ice skating on the Thames by 2025?


The announcement made on 14 June (18:00 UK time) comes from scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory. Three different analyses of the Sun's recent behaviour all indicate that a period of unusually low solar activity may be about to begin.

The Sun normally follows an 11-year cycle of activity. The current cycle, Cycle 24, is now supposed to be ramping up towards maximum strength. Increased numbers of sunspots and other indications ought to be happening: but in fact results so far are most disappointing. Scientists at the NSO now suspect, based on data showing decades-long trends leading to this point, that Cycle 25 may not happen at all.

This could have major implications for the Earth's climate. According to a statement issued by the NSO, announcing the research:

An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots [which occurred] during 1645-1715.
As NASA notes [1]:

Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.
During the Maunder Minimum and for periods either side of it, many European rivers which are ice-free today â€" including the Thames â€" routinely froze over, allowing ice skating and even for armies to march across them in some cases.

"This is highly unusual and unexpected," says Dr Frank Hill of the NSO. "But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good news for Mars astronauts â€" Less good for carbon traders, perhaps
Hill's own research focuses on surface pulsations of the Sun and their relationship with sunspots, and his team has already used their methods to successfully predict the late onset of Cycle 24.

"We expected to see the start of the zonal flow for Cycle 25 by now," Hill explained, "but we see no sign of it. This indicates that the start of Cycle 25 may be delayed to 2021 or 2022, or may not happen at all."

Hill's results match those from physicists Matt Penn and William Livingston, who have gone over 13 years of sunspot data from the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak in Arizona. They have seen the strength of the magnetic fields which create sunspots declining steadily. According to the NSO:

Penn and Livingston observed that the average field strength declined about 50 gauss per year during Cycle 23 and now in Cycle 24. They also observed that spot temperatures have risen exactly as expected for such changes in the magnetic field. If the trend continues, the field strength will drop below the 1,500 gauss threshold and spots will largely disappear as the magnetic field is no longer strong enough to overcome convective forces on the solar surface.
In parallel with this comes research from the US Air Force's studies of the solar corona. Richard Altrock, in charge of this, has found a 40-year decline in the "rush to the poles" â€" the poleward surge of magnetic activity in the corona.

"Those wonderful, delicate coronal features are actually powerful, robust magnetic structures rooted in the interior of the Sun," Altrock says. "Changes we see in the corona reflect changes deep inside the Sun ...

"Cycle 24 started out late and slow and may not be strong enough to create a rush to the poles, indicating we'll see a very weak solar maximum in 2013, if at all. If the rush to the poles fails to complete, this creates a tremendous dilemma for the theorists ... No one knows what the Sun will do in that case."

According to the collective wisdom of the NSO, another Maunder Minimum may very well be on the cards.

"If we are right," summarises Hill, "this could be the last solar maximum we'll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth's climate."

The effects on space exploration would be benign, as fewer or no solar storms would make space a much less hostile environment for human beings. At the moment, anyone venturing beyond the Earth's protective magnetic field (the only people to have done so were the Apollo moon astronauts of the 1960s and '70s) runs a severe risk of dangerous or fatal radiation exposure during a solar storm.

Manned missions beyond low Earth orbit, a stated aspiration of the USA and other nations, might become significantly safer and cheaper to mount (cheaper as there would be no requirement for possibly very heavy shielding to protect astronauts, so reducing launch costs).

The big consequences of a major solar calm spell, however, would be climatic. The next few generations of humanity might not find themselves trying to cope with global warming but rather with a significant cooling. This could overturn decades of received wisdom on such things as CO2 emissions, and lead to radical shifts in government policy worldwide. ®

[St. Auggie]

So you are trying to tell me that the sun, the most powerful force in our solar system, may have a greater affect on earth's climate then man has?huh. It's almost like these things go through cycles and take care of themselves rather than what one insignificant species does over a 100 years. Maybe it's got this all figured out over the last couple of billion years. Guess I can start using lots of Aquanet again.

[Jimmy]

"Winter is coming."


(You probably have to be a fan of Game of Thrones to get that.)

[Dog Walker]

The last solar minimum was in the '70's and I remember a Popular Science(?) cover showing the Statue of Liberty with ice and snow up to her waist due to a predicted new ice age.

When it didn't happen, climate scientists at the time attributed the lack of an ice age to the carbon dioxide that had been put into the atmosphere by industrialization and the burning of fossil fuels.

[jandar]

There is a much larger interconnection between the sun and our weather than people want to admit.

Right now people are starting to see the patterns between solar flares and tropical systems forming. Happens more often to be just circumstantial.

Think about this: What is a solar flare and what kind of energy does that release into our atmosphere when it hits the magnetic field? That energy has to go somewhere.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034431.shtml
When there is solar activity, hurricane potential decreases due to a heated upper atmosphere. Tropical systems need cold tops to create bigger storms, a warmer upper atmosphere disrupts that mechanism.

It just shows that science is nowhere near settled when it comes to the Earth's climate. Way more in play than most people realize.

[Sigma]

The last solar minimum was in the '70's and I remember a Popular Science(?) cover showing the Statue of Liberty with ice and snow up to her waist due to a predicted new ice age.

When it didn't happen, climate scientists at the time attributed the lack of an ice age to the carbon dioxide that had been put into the atmosphere by industrialization and the burning of fossil fuels.

Obviously, the solution to this (from an AGW perspective) would be to immediately ramp up carbon emissions.  Why, we should start subsidizing fossil-fuel use and pay drivers a per-mile tax credit!  Build refineries, and fly lots of charter jet flights with only a handful of passengers!  Oh, wait â€" Al Gore already does the last one.

[FSBA]

Over the years I've become increasingly jaded towards how media covers science topics. They boil everything down to a shock headline and go from there.

[Sigma]

Over the years I've become increasingly jaded towards how media covers science topics. They boil everything down to a shock headline and go from there.

Yes, true, but here at MJ you'll never see a shocking or totally ridiculous headline.

[Sigma]

And be wary of sea level estimates.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/

Planet Earth
Changing Tides: Research Center Under Fire for 'Adjusted' Sea-Level Data
By Maxim Lott

Published June 17, 2011
| 

NASA

In a NASA "what-if" animation, light-blue areas in southern Florida and Louisiana indicate regions that may be underwater should sea levels rise dramatically.
Is climate change raising sea levels, as Al Gore has argued -- or are climate scientists doctoring the data?

The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters -- or about the thickness of a fingernail -- every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.

"Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring," said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.

Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

"We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger... water volume is expanding," he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

Taylor calls it tomfoolery.

"There really is no reason to do this other than to advance a political agenda," he said.

Climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said that the amount of water in the ocean and sea level were two different things.

"To me… sea level rise is what's measured against the actual coast," he told FoxNews.com. "That's what tells us the impact of rising oceans."

Taylor agreed.

"Many global warming alarmists say that vast stretches of coastline are going to be swallowed up by the sea. Well, that means we should be talking about sea level, not about global water volume."

In e-mails with FoxNews.com, Nerem indicated that he considered "sea level rise" to be the same thing as the amount of water in the ocean.

"If we correct our data to remove [the effect of rising land], it actually does cause the rate of sea level (a.k.a. ocean water volume change) rise to be bigger," Nerem wrote. The adjustment is trivial, and not worth public attention, he added.

"For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy… [The] effect is tiny -- only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet."

But Taylor said that the correction seemed bigger when compared with actual sea level increases.

"We’ve seen only 7 inches of sea level rise in the past century and it hasn’t sped up this century. Compared to that, this would add nearly 20 percent to the sea level rise. That's not insignificant," he told FoxNews.com.

Nerem said that the research center is considering compromising on the adjustment.

"We are considering putting both data sets on our website -- a GIA-corrected dataset, as well as one without the GIA correction," he said.

Christy said that would be a welcome change.

"I would encourage CU to put the sea level rate [with] no adjustment at the top of the website," he said.

Taylor’s takeaway: Be wary of sea level rise estimates.

"When Al Gore talks about Manhattan flooding this century, and 20 feet of sea level rise, that’s simply not going to happen. If it were going to happen, he wouldn’t have bought his multi-million dollar mansion along the coast in California."

[Kiva]

Okay. Last year, 2010, was the hottest on record. Look at : http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/12/nasa-2010-meteorological-year-wa.html
You can deny scientific facts as long as you want, but the sooner we deal with global warming the cheaper it will be for the economy as a whole.

[Kiva]

And be wary of sea level estimates.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/

"For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy… [The] effect is tiny -- only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet."

So the whole point of your long post is that the estimated sea level rise has been exaggerated by 1 inch. But the article points out that sea level is likely to rise by 2 - 4 feet. Don't you understand that sea level RISE means global warming is already happening?

[St. Auggie]

Okay. Last year, 2010, was the hottest on record. Look at : http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/12/nasa-2010-meteorological-year-wa.html
You can deny scientific facts as long as you want, but the sooner we deal with global warming the cheaper it will be for the economy as a whole.

I love it. The planet is 4.5 BILLION yo, and they use a random 30 year period to say what is "normal". I have zero problem saying it's warm then when I was a kid, but to assume this has anything to do with humans is laughable at best. We are an arrogant species to assume the Earth gives a rats about us.

[Sigma]

And be wary of sea level estimates.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/

"For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy… [The] effect is tiny -- only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet."

So the whole point of your long post is that the estimated sea level rise has been exaggerated by 1 inch. But the article points out that sea level is likely to rise by 2 - 4 feet. Don't you understand that sea level RISE means global warming is already happening?

Please read the entire article.  Its apparent you stopped reading at that point. 

[Kiva]

Okay. Last year, 2010, was the hottest on record. Look at : http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/12/nasa-2010-meteorological-year-wa.html
You can deny scientific facts as long as you want, but the sooner we deal with global warming the cheaper it will be for the economy as a whole.

I love it. The planet is 4.5 BILLION yo, and they use a random 30 year period to say what is "normal".

Actually, the article says 130 years, and it's not a "random period" it is only in the last 130 years that we have reliable records. Unless you have some special knowledge about the climate 3 billion years ago!

[Kiva]

And be wary of sea level estimates.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/

"For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy… [The] effect is tiny -- only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet."

So the whole point of your long post is that the estimated sea level rise has been exaggerated by 1 inch. But the article points out that sea level is likely to rise by 2 - 4 feet. Don't you understand that sea level RISE means global warming is already happening?

Please read the entire article.  Its apparent you stopped reading at that point.

No, I actually read the entire article, and it said that sea level is rising. Did you read that? If the planet is cooling, then sea level will fall. Hot water is less dense than cold. Fact.