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

We agree on this 100%, Larry. Think if it is shown to be hooey he'll give back his fraud nobel prize? But you can be sure of one thing... the global warming folks will be shivering in their polar suits in Georgia still claiming they were right!

 

That's not a very nice thing to say to someone Charles.

See, I actually hope the climate doesn't get too hot *or* too cold, and you & your family & friends enjoy a long, happy, healthy & prosperous life..

Oh well, guess that's just my Midwestern upbringing. Silly compassion for my fellow man...

 

Thanks for the well wishes. And same to you.

 

This past winter 75 and 160 were very good. If you invested in equipment that has those frequenies and have good antenns for the bands, you will enjoy DX.

 

Makes me wish I had enough room for a longer antenna. 20m is as low as I can go, frequency-wise. My attic is only so big, and I'm not even going to bother asking my condo association if I can hang a dipole in the back yard

I'm not surprised this thread descended into a climate change argument. Honestly, I don't trust any scientific research that depends on the government renewing funding every year. There is just too much incentive to fudge the data to come to alarmist conclusions in order to ensure further grant money - and this is true on both sides of the aisle.

Science used to be about the pursuit of truth, but modern science is about the furtherance of various political agendas.

 

Interesting discussion. A comment I saw earlier in the thread was that this being a ham radio forum there is fear the thread will be closed due to it's political nature. Climate, as far as I can tell, is not politics: it's science. That said, there are people who are politicizing it, and those folks should be taken with a grain of salt. I have reviewed numerous articles and documentaries on global warming (climate change), and those who say humans have little or nothing to do with climate change seem to have the most compelling data. It's interesting to note that of the 2500 scientists on the IPCC's "top scientists" list, not all are scientists. In addition, scientists on the list who had previously bowed out due to disagreements with the IPCC conclusion remain on the list. That comes across as being a bit disingenuous.

I'm sure the number of people who have come to a conclusion on climate change based solely on media coverage or by watching one documentary (on either side of the debate) is staggering. That to me is alarming. It's possible some of the posters on this thread fall squarely into that category. You can't have an informed debate if you are not informed. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I'm sure I've done more investigation into this topic than the average global citizen.

We will have to see, but I think the Sun and its cycles look to be the more powerful theory of climate change. Or should I say climate cycle?

73 and good DX I hope
Eric

 

A Little Ice Age lasting 80 Years?

According to this scientist, it might happen.

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.milenio.com%2Fmexico%2Fmilenio%2Fnota.asp%3Fid%3D651680&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=es&tl=en

Just more fuel for the fire, and we might need that fuel if we are going into
a "little ice age". Where is Al Gore when we really need him

Actually this thread has been rather civil with the only bit of strife being the questioning of academic credentials.

73
George
K3UD

 

Mexican Scientist warns of Coming Big Chilli, er that's Chill.

Thankyou! I am not a political person.
To add to this interesting Thread we have been informed of the latest scientific news on the current Solar activity phase & its potential effect to create a mini Ice-Age (& that even more serious problem of shortened skip distance on 20. hi)

Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera of the Institute of Geophysics at the University of Mexico states that "In about ten years the Earth will enter a "little ice age" which will last from 60 to 80 years and may be caused by the decrease in solar activity," according to a report in the major Mexican newspaper Milenio Diario.
— 16 Aug, 2008. (Click link for Google auto translate.)
Yes, just another scientist, I know. Good point. Plus the Sun came out here today, so presumably that's the issue sorted!​

Herrera slammed the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) stance on global warming as "erroneous" because of their failure to factor in the impact of solar activity.
The models and forecasts of the IPCC "is incorrect because only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity," said Herrera.
Herrera states that the earth is entering a natural phase of climate transition during which solar activity will diminish considerably, "so that in two years or so, there will be a small ice age that lasts from 60 to 80 years."
Herrera cited the growth in glaciers observed at the Andes, Perito Moreno, Logan, the highest mountain in Canada, and Franz-Josef Glacier, New Zealand.​

Thanks to Paul Joseph Watson for this information. I do not want this thread to get anyone, least of all this forum into internal dispute. But clearly it has provided for what people want, otherwise presumably there would not have been 10K++ visits to it in just 4 days.​

73, Good DX; good hunting and it's been a pleasure working you. See you on echolink! ​

 

Sorry... the Goddard Institute doesn't agree...

[To access the graphs named below (referred to in article as Fig. 1 a and b), go to <http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/>
--------------------------------------------------
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation

The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.

Figure 1 shows 2007 temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 base period mean. The global mean temperature anomaly, 0.57°C (about 1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 mean, continues the strong warming trend of the past thirty years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Hansen et al. 2007). The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

Figure 1, showing (a) line plot of global temperatue anomaly 1880-2007 and (b) map of 2007 anomaly

Figure 1, above. (a) Annual surface temperature anomaly relative to 1951-1980 mean, based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements of sea surface temperature. (b) Global map of surface temperature anomalies for 2007. (Figure also available as large GIF or PDF.)

 

Actually, It Goes Like This...

Actually, it goes like this... for all four (4) global surface temperature data sets!

The following paragraph describes the attached "jpg thumbnail" chart as it trends downward.

"A pronounced downtrend followed the phase-transition in global surface temperature late in 2001. In the cold winter of 2007/8, record sea-ice extents were observed at both Poles. The January-to-January fall in temperature from 2007-2008 was the greatest since global records began in 1880.

Chart Sources:

- Goddard Institute for Space Studies
- Remote Sensing Systems
- University of Alabama at Huntsville
- Hadley Centre / Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia.

Graphic (chart) by Professor Anthony Watts."


Reference Figure 1 of the following: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/i...scarewatch/GW_happening_now-Royal_Society.pdf

73.

 

What am I doing reading this crap?

I have more tires to burn.

And some vinyl siding and shingles.

Busy, busy.

 

David Hathaway Say's it's not happening so why the worry?

David Hathaway has said in more than one news conference that the conditions are well within the teams propagation forecast, so why all worry? I've been eager to see some improvement in propagation, but if you've reviewed the Solar Cycle Prediction page where Hathaway goes into depth about the coming Solar Cycle you might not worry quite so much.
Here's the link to the page I just mentioned.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html
There are other pages with updates to this information, but they all reflect that we are on track for Cycle 24. Another page that reflects we are on track is one from NASA and is a pretty interesting link as the other is.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

Anyway it's just my thoughts, and if you read what Hathaway says in his response to the Mini-Ice age question I think you'll see again that he gives the idea no credence. The link to this and other questions is listed in the article and and is below as well.
http://lostestate.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/sun-seems-eerily-calm/
Over all Honestly I don't see any need to worry about the next cycle or an impending Ice Age, but more what the peak of the cycle is and how long it'll last.

Just my thoughts

 

Oh, I don't know... my Alaskan property and home sits on top of a large glacial moraine of the last ice age!