New Mini Ice Age

Hey, would you look at this... some more indicators towards the solar activity theory.

Wouldn't it be funny if all those sheep who know no better were all fooled by an agenda when the facts where right in front of their face the whole time. They should really seek help as its a sign of mental health problems to cling to delusions just so you can align with popular sentiment. A hidden need for peer reinforcement and affection for bullying others to reinforce their own social group..... sad fraks.

Anyway, have a read of this and you'll note it aligns with the solar activity based climate change model;

EARTH faces a new “mini ice age” in the next 15 years, bringing year-round snowfields and turning normally ice-free waterways to sleet, scientists predict.

As the Antarctic Vortex grips Australia, solar researchers from the University of Northumbria in the UK say solar activity is set to plummet by 60 per cent in the 2030s.

Research lead Professor Valentina Zharkova said fluid movements within the Sun, believed to create 11-year cycles in the weather, will cancel each other out, triggering a dramatic temperature drop.

This will lead to a weather phenomenon known as a “mini ice age” which previously hit between 1645 and 1715.

http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au...15-years/story-fnj94lfw-1227439329592[/COLOR]

I odn't doubt for a second human's influence local climates, there is plenty of GOOD science to support this, but AGW was just an Al Gore inspired scientific agenda at the cost of the truth.... probably.

 

Yeah, but we wont get it on the gold coast...its always a balmy 24...although today it was a bit cooler...thought for a second about putting a shirt on......

 

almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell:

 

Well if you own property on the GC and there is an ice age, it might be going up in value!!! Melbourne is freezing at the best of times..... so I cannot imagine people wanting to stay there if it got any worse

 

I wonder when that will be added to this
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

 

Yep, the whackos that run that site might have a problem on their hands. They will probably look for and answer by killing a dog and reading its entrails......

 

ask your grandkids, they will be able to tell you the difference of local weather and climate as such!!!!
Regards

 

I suppose I am technically old enough to have grandkids, just, but your comment is nonsensical and basically irrelevant to the topic. If you think I've expressed some incapacity to understand the difference feel free to point it out. Confidence in your position does not make your argument strong or correct.... unless you can defend it with data which supports conclusions (still waiting).

 

It's important to accept the science you agree with and the science you don't agree with. Calling something skeptical is inaccurate in this instance.... unless you think your in a better position then the lead researcher who is a Professor in Mathematics at Northumbria University and has a BSc/MSc in Applied Mathematics and Astronomy, and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics. Or you disagree with it on some actual evidence based position (shock horror imagine that)?

 

Well,
if you would understand the difference between local weather and climate in general you wouldn't have started your thread: New Mini Ice Age.....
But what would I know....
Regards

 

Do you really know what your talking about... because the only difference between weather and climate is the time they represent.

Mini refers to the intensity, not the extent of global coverage - its got nothing to do with local.

The thread is about solar activity dropping and thus global temperatures dropping. My comment about local was that human influence is local.... and the AGW mob (which is what it is, a crazed mob) are using an obvious logical assertion of truth (about human local influence to climate) as a hook for people to cling too in belief with the agenda that it also is responsible for the longstanding and otherwise natural relationship between solar activity and global temperatures. When your all caught up you can stop making a fool of yourself, or your welcome to actually explain your point for once if you actually have one, its up to you.

 

Maybe, or they could tell the truth, which is the usual thing. I actually have no problem with what I read that Professor Zharkova wrote. What I have a problem with is the deceit that the deniers use to use her work as a tool in their propaganda.

The phenomenon she describes is cyclical, it reoccurs in cycles. A cycle every 11 years that cycles every 100 or so years. That is we have a little cold snap every 11 years and a big one every 100 or so years. It is the nature of the beast, everything cycles really, the Moon circles the Earth, the Earth circles the Sun. All these forces, gravity, centrifugal force, solar activity, momentum all create this pulsating organism called the solar system. Orbits wobble, degenerate, things change, equilibrium of forces keeps the whole thing working. Eventually however it will all fall apart. A few billion years time.

In biochemistry I had to learn all these chemical pathways and cycles. This chemical reacts with that chemical under these conditions if this enzyme is present to form another chemical. Google the Krebs cycle.



I had to learn this little baby along with a few hundred others. It is the Tricarboxylic Acid (TCA) Cycle, or more commonly known as the Citric Acid Cycle or Krebs' cycle. This cycle is the power station of us, it takes sugar at one end and pumps out energy as it cycles. There is tens of thousands of these reactions going on every second in every cell in every air breathing beast and organism, including you and I.

But in reality the only exist on paper, in our imaginations they were created to help us understand what happens. In reality it is just a big chemical soup being driven to an equilibrium by some force. I can guarantee the AcetylCoA on each cycle is not checking to see if the NAD+ or FAD+ is from their cycle or some other cycle, or God forbid, another chemical reaction altogether. It doesn't happen, they just react in the direction of the chemical pressure to equilibrium. Here is where I love biology, the reaction gives off heat, from "burning" the sugar, heat once gathered from the sun, stored as a hydrocarbon by plants, to one day drive the muscles and brains of the beasts that eat the plants.

There is a beauty to nature, each and every little thing, each atom, each electron actually playing it's part in the great scheme of things. Nature works like an orchestra, dozens of finally tuned instruments each playing there small but essential role in the symphony of life.

BUT .... a microscopic chemical can get into the system, a small change in hydration, a slight rise in temperature and the whole thing collapses, often causing a domino affect to cause the malfunction to spread. Illness, poisons, viruses etc change these cycles causing illness or death.

One string on one violin and the symphony is not the same, the richness and breadth change, it's not the same.

The orchestra plays the climate, beasts, plants, volcanoes, solar events, tides, gravity and a myriad other things are the instruments of the orchestra, life is the symphony, and man comes along and breaks a string. "It's just one string." he says, "We have others, and strings do break", but do they, not if we use care, good resins, correct tension, good technique.

Anyway I have to go, the show may be over soon enough, when the music dies.

Oh and what she showed was weather not climate.

 

An interesting brain teaser for you, well those of you that know or looked up the Krebs cycle. The Krebs cycle has something to do with the CO2 in the atmosphere. What? .... Braniacs could work it out from the diagram.

 

Your wrong DV, the 11 year cycle is not the cause of the proposed Mini-Ice Age. She talks about the cycle to educate people in some basics, but she is not suggesting that every 11 years we have a Mini-Ice Age - she is suggesting that the solar activity could be about to drop sufficiently to recreate a Mini-Ice Age similar to one which happened 400 years ago..... and in that regard it is about climate and not weather.

From NASA;

- Weather is basically the way the atmosphere is behaving, mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities.

- When we talk about climate change, we talk about changes in long-term averages of daily weather. In addition to long-term climate change, there are shorter term climate variations. This so-called climate variability can be represented by periodic or intermittent changes related to El Niño, La Niña, volcanic eruptions, or other changes in the Earth system.

So while its cute to hear the pro-AGW attack anyone who disagrees with their nonsense opinions as 'deniers', its actually the pro-AGW that are floating their boats on the back of misinformation here (though I don't comment on elsewhere, as there are loonies in all camps).

 

The pro cAGWer's usually trot out the Sun's TSI as proof that the sun cannot make any difference since TSI only changes a little. The largest astronomical body in our solar system has been reduced to a one line, single temperature. Forget magnetic flux ropes, solar weather, sun spots and jet streams. Who cares about polar fields, particle flow and proton storms. We’ve barely begun to understand the sun, but we Know These Things Don’t Cause Climate Change (because the models say so).

 

More science leaking out supporting the huge impact solar activity has in driving global temperatures;

 

The new study, dated when?

 

There are those who say Global Warming isn't real and those who claim it is but one thing is for certain regardless of what one believes the fact remains Sea Levels are rising and this is due to Polar and Greenland Ice melt.

Miamii is spending $1 Billion to build a system of pumping stations to rid itself of ocean water that is flooding the city and the beach areas as the Sea Levels are much higher then they ever have been.

Cities like Boston and New York are building similar pumping systems as well as building new breakwaters.

All up and down the U.S. Coastline everytime even small storms hit the sea levels are so high this causes massive flooding.

These issues are much worse in areas of the world such as India where a great many people are being flooded out of their homes on the coast and they are migrating inland causing all sorts of issues.

The U.S. Military uses the information provided to it by the CDIAC...Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center which is a part of the DOE....Dept. of Energy's Office of Science at the Oak Ridge National Labs.

The U.S. Military uses this data to input it into their Networked Supercomputers that run Battle Senarios as well as what will happen when sea levels are even higher causing greater migrations of people all over the Earth and sparling conflicts.

AboveAlpha

 

Yet you have no problem with the misuse of science for the deceit that the warmists use as a tool in their propaganda. Go figure.

 

Fair question

The press release was 16 July 2015
http://news.agu.org/press-release/suns-activity-controls-greenland-temperatures/

 

Of course the problem is population congregating in the most volatile region of the world, the coastline. No matter what happens, it will still be the most volatile region with either cooling or warming.

 

The problem that the U.S. Military is running computer models upon is displacement of people due to rising sea levels and the movement of those people to higher elevations of already populated areas.

AboveAlpha

 

Being a scientist myself, yes I would have plenty of issues with that and if I find that I discount them on both sides, unfortunately, it discounts most of the deniers and only some of the warmists. I say unfortunately because I would love to be wrong. To tell the truth, I have read volumes on the subject and I am still not sure, so until I am 100% sure, until it is proven 100% beyond doubt, I will continue to be a warmist.

Einstein said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.", show me that ONE PROOF TO SHOW ME WRONG, because nothing you can say can prove you are right.

So why do I take such a strange stance, because if YOU ARE RIGHT, we have wasted time and money. If YOU ARE WRONG ...... God help us.

 

I agree totally with this problem and in particular in Australia for more reasons then global warming, every day, prime agricultural land is being used to build new homes on.

 

For those that do not understand Einstein. If I said, "Every time I throw the ball I get a basket", that cannot be proven right because you would need to wait until I died, unless, once, I threw the ball and missed. Now I could never say, "Every time I throw the ball I get a basket"