Weather & Sunspot Cycle 24. Heralding a New Maunder Minimum & Ice-Age?

That might not be a bad idea. A lottery where everyone pics a date for some future catastrophic event due to either global warming or mini-Ica Age. I'm sure the bet makers world wide would have a Field Day!

The real question is whether it's wise to take action to prevent further "global climate change" that results in further warming, if that will be the outcome, or continue as we are, and shrug our shoulders and say "there's nothing we can do about it." Or is it wiser to take what actions we can in the event the "Global Warming" due to human produced greenhouse gasses and human activity is a contributing factor.

It would also be wise to weigh the cost in lives and even quality of life world wide should either "Global Warming" or "mini Ice age" become inevitable.

 

In the 1970's, Newsweek, Time, and a host of other magazines and newspapers were carrying alarming predictions of "a new Ice Age" from some of the same "scientists" who are now trying to sell "Global Warming". The Earth was predicted to cool so much that wheat could not be grown in most of the Mid-West -- because the growing season was to be too short as far South as Kansas.

People were supposed to be starving worldwide, because the planet would be unable to produce enough food, and Artic-like temperatures were to descend on New York City.

There is OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC evidence that links global temperature swings over at least a few hundred thousand years to natural events. There is a large block of evidence that clearly shows that the Earth has been MUCH warmer (around 2 degrees) than it is the present day. The last time it was that warm was within the past 2000 years.

There is absolutely no OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC evidence to support the hypothesis that man has caused any amount of "Global Warming".

When people freely and highly selectively pick and choose their data points, they can "prove" any hypothesis -- regardless of how ridiculous it may be. That clearly shows that the conclusion was reached, then data was collected to support the conclusion. (a.k.a. Bad Science)

When one is forced to have the data reveal the conclusion (i.e., one is forced to use the "Scientific Method"), there is clearly a greater weight of evidence to support Global Cooling than there is to support Global Warming. There is no weight of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that man's puny impact has caused either warming or cooling.

Because we clearly have limited ability to understand the "whys", we can only look at past history. Past history clearly reveals a cycle of global warming and global cooling that extends to long before humans walked upon the planet.

Point to ponder: If one visits some of the seaports spoken of in the New Testament, one will see that the Mediterranean Sea ("Middle of the Earth Sea") shore is as much as a MILE from the docks that were used 2000 years ago. In other words, the sea level today is much lower than it was 2000 years ago. Interestingly, the global temperature 2000 years ago was around 2 degrees warmer......

 

BINGO!

And here's another point to ponder: Has anyone ever wondered how all that oil that now lies under the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve got there in the first place?

Oil comes from decaying plants...primarily TROPICAL plants. And some of that same OBJECTIVE scientific evidence Larry has so eloquently cited above has also shown that, millions of years ago, our planet supported numerous TROPICAL seas in what is now the "frigid" far north. Yep, that's the same place where all those glaciers are now melting.

Larry is absolutely correct: Extensive fossil and other geologic records have unequivocally shown that our Earth has undergone numerous (and entirely NATURAL) heating and cooling cycles over the millennia.

What's more, speaking as a degreed geologist, I have yet to see any OBJECTIVE or wholly CONCLUSIVE scientific evidence to support the largely political hypothesis that man has been the sole, root cause of "human-activity-based Global Warming".

To the contrary, what many of the ignorant stooges repeating this baseless dogma fail to understand is that naturally occurring volcanic eruptions over the eons have spewed FAR more Carbon Dioxide and other so-called "greenhouse gases" into our atmosphere than we mortals have collectively contributed since the dawn of the industrial age.

And who knows what impact (if any) the naturally occurring, cyclic expansion and contraction of our Sun, or the cyclic impact of sunspots, or the "wandering" of our Earth's poles has also had on the process?

Now, this is NOT to say that human activities haven't had a measurable (or more localized) impact on global temperatures and climate. But the fossil evidence clearly suggests there are FAR bigger (and far more NATURAL) forces at work in all this than Man's comparatively puny contributions to date.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

 

Point to ponder: If one visits some of the seaports spoken of in the New Testament, one will see that the Mediterranean Sea ("Middle of the Earth Sea") shore is as much as a MILE from the docks that were used 2000 years ago. In other words, the sea level today is much lower than it was 2000 years ago. Interestingly, the global temperature 2000 years ago was around 2 degrees warmer......[/QUOTE]

Ignoring the rest of your collection of dogmatic and erroneous statements, lets just look at that last one. Elsewhere in that same sea you will find Graeco-Roman seaports that are submerged, and even ruins now above water that have borings part way up columns that show that they have been partially submerged at some point since their construction but have re-emerged. What you have to bear in mind is that the land can and does move up and down in response to geological processes and this can all too easily be interpreted as changes in sea level.

73

Brian G8ADD

 

G8ADD said it very, very well.

I find it interesting that anyone could seriously utter the phrases "global warming tripe" or "climate change fiasco," given the following (for those whose heads may not have been not in the sand, albeit perpetually bent sun-ward):

(1) Three weeks ago, Russia undertook an emergency rescue mission to pick up its crew at a north polar base that was in danger because the orginal ice floe on which it was stationed a mere few months ago, had rapidly dwindled from 3-4 miles square to a few hundred yards from station to the sea;

(2) By the end of THIS MONTH, the north polar sea wil be ICE FREE, for the first time in recorded history. Even the most outspoken global warming 'alarmists' had generally expected this to occur sometime around 2035;

(3) I guess a few of my Brit colleagues missed the news of one of their countrymen SWIMMING at the NORTH POLE last year.

There is indeed solid evidence that solar activity influences Earth climate. But to take that evidence and proclaim that the undeniable general heating of the planet's atmoshpere (out of proportion to typical geological cycling) thereby, ipso facto renders global warming a "hoax," is sophistry at best and simple hogwash at worst.

As persons with a unique interest in solar phenomena and dynamic systems generally, we hams ought to be a resource for contributing thought experiments and innovative theoretical analyses to these matters. Additonally, we are in a unique position to help develop 'soft' energy alternatives, if for no other reason than our own self-interests as energy prices continue to skyrocket. Accusing people of having all manner of diabolical motives for publicizing the current crises set in motion by rapid global warming, serves no humanitarian interest.

No doubt, this thread will get more and more crazy until it is ultimately closed by the administrator.

Yes, the current embryonic solar cycle has raised some scientific eyebrows. The fact is, though, that we know far more about global warming and its causes & effects, than we do about the proclivities of Sol. Our ability to model and predict the sequelae of the global warming trend of the last 100 years is far more robust than our ability to predict what is going to happen with cycle 24. As it is turning out, those models have been too conservative in their interpretation.

Anlaysis of isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere leave little doubt that human activity has been the most profound factor in global warming. That said, the most powerful greenhouse gas is not CO2, but rather water vapor. Now, if I wished to adopt the reasoning of some here, I could claim that fact as "proof" that "global warming is a hoax." No, that doesn't make sense...any more than the argument that the sunspot nadir, or a few years of moderation in Easrth surface tempertaures, constitute "proof" of a "global warming hoax."

It is an interesting time in which to live. Perhaps some periodicity of the sun is about to manifest itself that will greatly influence the warming trend. And perhaps not. Let's await some data prior to proclaiming that trend a hoax and those documenting it as vermin.

73 de Kevin WA7VTD

 

Here: ScienceDaily: "Sun Goes Longer Than Normal Without Producing Sunspots"

 

Slow Cycle Odd DX times on 10 m

Well with the way the weather has been the last 6 months I wonder if we will have a strange winter maybe a cold blizzard one like back in the mid 80's, depending on location. At the start of that cycle. We will have to wait and see, I hope so, we need the moisture all over the place. Its been too dry for too long. And I hope the next Solar Cycle will be the best ever. I want to talk to the world at 60 over

73

AD7BK

 

"60 over?" Well, that depends. How old are you now?

 

'Nuff said!!!!

(See my signature line.)

 

evidence is everywhere

The evidence of a warming trend is everywhere. Here in New Jersey I have observed birds never before this far north now residing here winter-long.
Some species of annual plants wintering-over and some insects surviving the winter to become over-abundant in the spring and summer. Then, not to mention, the detection and recording of the loss of our ozone layer which allows solar heating as well as the unprecedented melting of the polar regions!
The naysayers obviously believe that they know more on the topic than the many doctorates who have studied the dilema. Empirical evidence?

 

I don't know many professional "degreed geologists" (i.e., those who actually 'practice' geology is some manner, and I do not refer to oil company employees) who utilize such questionable and invalid inductive reasoning and ad hominem arguments.

At least, you begin to moderate your point toward the end of your post...ANYONE can set up a straw-man, such as you have done by characterizing those with whom you disagree as being persons who claim that "man has been the sole, root cause of "human-activity-based Global Warming". (Although, to be precise, I don't suppose you could inform me as to whom, if not MAN, would be SOLELY responsible for HUMAN ACTIVITY-BASED global warming? Perhaps you have some startling new evidence that moths or amoebae are partially responsible for "human activity-based global warming?" Do share, please! Such evidence will launch an entitrely new controversial thread: "SECULAR HUMANIST EVOLUTIONISTS CLAIM MAN EVOLVED FROM AMOEBA AND MOTH!").

Of course, what you MEANT to say, was that you have yet to see any objective evidence that human activity is the sole cause of global warming.

OK, and so what? Who is making such an argument? Nobody of whom I am aware.

As a degreed geologist, I presume you are well versed in the atmospheric carbon isotope studies. How are those not "objective?" Do you suggest that the researchers selectively measured only human-activity-generated carbon isotopes, and ignored the naturally-occurring carbon isotopes? If you possess such evidence, it is your obligation as a degreed geologist with apparent vast knowledge and expertise of this subject, to "out" the frauds! Please be sure to alert us to the volume and page number of the peer-reviewed scientific journal in which you do so!

.

Ah, without the straw man, the fuel for dogmatic controversy begins to disspate, doesn't it?

Yes, indeed, human impact is decidely "measurable." Your theory that it has led to "localized" climate change is intriguing. All measurable "local" climate change utimately produces global climate change, though perhaps not always measurably. But such metaphysical nuances need not occupy us with regard to the current subject matter, as there is no persuasive evidence that the cause of atypically rapid warming (accumulation of greenhouse gasses) has affected (or could ever be capable of effecting) SOLELY a "localized" portion of the planet.

Now, Keith, surely you must recognize the fallacy of your approach here. Undoubtedly, learning to recognize and avoid such fallacious reasoning was an important part of your pursuit of a geology degree, was it not? BTW, was that a Ph.D? a B.S.? An A.A.?

A teaspoon of plutonium is theoretically capable of causing nine billion cases of lung cancer...if you could parcel it out and deliver it amongst the individuals comrpising the world's population. Similarly, there is enough water flowing daily through the Mississippi River to drown every man, woman and child in America several million times over, but one would, in order to achieve that result, have to drag every such man, woman and child to the river and submerge them!

And so it is with regard to your argument in which the concededly far more awesome power of nature is contrasted to the so-called "puny" power of mere mortals. The results of the application of a force may depend upon the amount of energy released instantaneously in one such application, or may depend upon accumulating dynamic effects brought about by continuous, unabated application of far less energy in single moment, but continuing in its application (and in fact increasing) without cessation over a period of decades and centuries. Put another way, you might dispatch me to my maker by means of a a glass of hemlock which I am forced to drink all at once, or you might instead slowly posion me to death over a period of months, with a pinch of cadmium in my daily soup.

In fact, it is the very atmospheric volcanic exudate of which you write, that is believed by other degreed scientists to be responsible for the moderate reduction in Earth surface tempratures in the few recent years since major eruptions in the Phillipines and other places. This is acknoweldged by all reputable scientists ascribing to the overwhelmingly accepted conclusion that human activity is producing a global crisis with respect to acceleration of global warming.

But whereas such major eruptions occur at quite lengthy intervals, the destruction of natural carbon sinks (i.e., ocean plankton and rain forests) and artificial generation of greenhouse gases is continuous and is not only unabated, but rather is increasing at a geometric rate, due largely to (1) the rapid industrialization of China and other developing nations; (2) the burning of tropical rain forests in undeveloped and semi-developed (and ideologically 'upwardly mobile') societies; and (3) (with respect to ocean plankton) the sequelae thereof, along with such other influences as overfishing and other human activity that accelerates radical changes in marine ecology.

Honestly, I don't know what you expect to accomplish by labeling some of us as "ignorant stooges" purveying "political dogma." (Propaganda, after all, consists not of merely outright lies, but rather of half-truths, in which only certain facts are presented, while others are suppressed). But I'm certain that such an approach won't result in your revelations as a degreed geologist being published anywhere other than wide open forums such as this.

73 de Kevin WA7VTD

 

After watching a program on PBS (I think it was Nova), I am CONVIENCED:

SSN have an effect on solar winds: Solar winds have an effect on the earth's climate: There is no global warming... were at the bottom of the cycle. Were trying to save the Earth from it's self, cant be done.

Sit back and relax, as prop gets better, so should the climate and it's changes. We still need to be conscious of our impact on the system though.

Andrew

 

OK Andrew, thanks for the comforting information! I'll ignore everything else I've read, stop working to reduce my personal carbon footprint, and take great joy in your promise that by the time I'll be able to work Antarctica on 3 watts in a half-dozen years or so, the North Polar ice will be back, the residents of Tuvaulu will hve returned to their island, the Montana ski areas below 5,000 ft. elevation will re-open and be thriving, and the glaciers will return to their former level of prominence in Greenland. Gee, for a minute there, I was worried. How egotistical of me to presume that anything I (a mere puny mortal) did could possibly contribute to climate change (especially since it's all simply a myth)! You've heard the last from me on this subject...I don't want to expose myself any further as the dogmatic, ideologically-driven, ignorant stooge that I am!

73 es GL DX DR OM DE WA7VTD SK.

 

And if you believe THIS drivel.... that water vapor is the "boogeyman" that you say it is.... then our oceans would never have formed.

That's because there is increasing evidence that ALL of the liquid water in our oceans and throughout the rest of our Earth first condensed from (gasp!) WATER VAPOR released from the rocks in our planet...primarily via the eruptions of volcanoes.

The bottom line here is that ALL of this modern-day, "sky is falling" claptrap has been based on nothing more than a whole series of horrifically small sample sizes taken over a distressingly small time horizon.

Or, to put it another way, even 100 years' worth of "analysis of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere" absolutely does NOT support your sweeping conclusion that there is now "little doubt" that "human activity has been the most profound factor in global warming". If anything, such analyses support little more than a VERY weak hypothesis of what MIGHT POSSIBLY be happening.

That's because even the most extensive analysis of such data only gives us a tiny HINT of what MIGHT be happening to the atmosphere TODAY. It tells us little to nothing about how our atmosphere actually works over geologic time, that is, how it HAS ACTUALLY WORKED in the eons before now in cleansing itself of such (often naturally occurring) toxins.

The bottom line here is that 100 years' worth of sample data of ANYTHING gathered from a planet that has been around for some 4 or 5 BILLION (with a "B") years does NOT make for a statistically significant enough scientific sample with which to draw ANY meaningful conclusions about such extremely long-term (not to mention horrifically complex!) global processes.

The truth is that NOBODY has yet gathered enough statistically conclusive evidence over a long enough period of time to have even the faintest clue as to what, if any, long-term impact our human activities are (or are not) having on the atmosphere.

And anyone who makes such sweeping generalities based on such horrifically unsubstantiated "analysis" (as you have attempted to do in your latest post) is simply blowing smoke up people's rearward facing anatomies.

"nuff said.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

 

I guess the English language is not a priority for all, or the skill of READING.

Andrew