(02-05-2020 08:30 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 07:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://in.mashable.com/science/11043/ea...the-planet

You couldn't get this published in the US. Its from India.

Its actual science. The cultists will blame extreme cold on global warming, but its a natural cycle.

"...Solar minimums are part of the Sun's natural life cycle and occur once every 11 years. However, 2020's minimum is going to be a special case. That's because it marks the start of a rare event known as a Grand Solar Minimum, in which energy emitted from the Sun plummets down even more than usual. These only occur once every 400 years or so.

As per Northumbria University expert Valentina Zharkova, the icy spells and wet summers could be around until 2053, when solar activity picks up again...."

All I want to know is what does Greta think about this?

What she thinks about an article from Mashable India?

An article that does not actually site anything from the report itself?

Instead, the links associated with this article led to:

• A NASA website that hypothesizes more ideal conditions for space exploration due to a decrease in solar sunspot activity (that mentions absolutely nothing about terrestrial climate)
• Two links to the sensationalist tabloid The Sun
  

That link to The Sun also conveniently mentions this towards the end of the article:

Quote:Fortunately, it's not all doom and gloom – other experts believe that Grand Solar Minimums have little effect on our climate.

Instead, the cold snap experienced during the Maunder Minimum was likely triggered by several factors, including plumes of ash coughed out by a series of giant volcanic eruptions.

We're also expecting global warming to increase average temperatures in the coming decades.

It's unlikely, therefore, that the upcoming GSM will have any impact on global temperatures, solar scientist Mathew Owens told The Sun.

"The small reduction in the Sun's energy associated with a solar minimum is vastly offset by effects caused by human activity, such as CO2 in the atmosphere," Professor Owens, of Reading University, said.

"Thus there will probably be no detectable effect on global climate."

So you want to know what Greta thinks about an Indian digital media website that sources content from a British tabloid which loosely cites a paper that mentions absolutely nothing about climate? I'd wager she doesn't think much about it.

(02-04-2020 08:54 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 08:41 PM)Claw Wrote:  If true, this could dramatically effect the food supply.

I'd be more worried about what it will do the liberals minds.

Dont worry... they'll find a way to blame Trump.

Lots of money to be made from global warming. Always remember that.

(02-04-2020 08:25 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 08:23 PM)banker Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 07:39 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  looks like mo' $$$ for hanko d' banko....

hey, banker.....plenty o' rooms in the 'sip, bro....

other than watching my Cards/Blues, I don't miss StL for a nano....

If we have an ice age Mississippi will feel like Quebec. That just won't do, but maybe I'll stop in on my way south.

shorts are in demand in Feb., '74 - '20....sans a couple of 'em....

hell, the azaleas have been in bloom 1 mos. early for the past ~10 yrs....

Well when I was in Houston in the early 70s we had 3 snowfalls in late February early March. It was the end of March before all the snow melted.

And as Trump mentioned the Alamo, Santa Anna rank into a 16 inch blizzard in South Texas which cost him 10-25% of his army in 1836, between the cold and the Comanche raids on the stragglers.

(02-05-2020 10:00 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(02-05-2020 08:30 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 07:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://in.mashable.com/science/11043/ea...the-planet

You couldn't get this published in the US. Its from India.

Its actual science. The cultists will blame extreme cold on global warming, but its a natural cycle.

"...Solar minimums are part of the Sun's natural life cycle and occur once every 11 years. However, 2020's minimum is going to be a special case. That's because it marks the start of a rare event known as a Grand Solar Minimum, in which energy emitted from the Sun plummets down even more than usual. These only occur once every 400 years or so.

As per Northumbria University expert Valentina Zharkova, the icy spells and wet summers could be around until 2053, when solar activity picks up again...."

All I want to know is what does Greta think about this?

What she thinks about an article from Mashable India?

An article that does not actually site anything from the report itself?

Instead, the links associated with this article led to:

• A NASA website that hypothesizes more ideal conditions for space exploration due to a decrease in solar sunspot activity (that mentions absolutely nothing about terrestrial climate)
• Two links to the sensationalist tabloid The Sun
  

That link to The Sun also conveniently mentions this towards the end of the article:

Quote:Fortunately, it's not all doom and gloom – other experts believe that Grand Solar Minimums have little effect on our climate.

Instead, the cold snap experienced during the Maunder Minimum was likely triggered by several factors, including plumes of ash coughed out by a series of giant volcanic eruptions.

We're also expecting global warming to increase average temperatures in the coming decades.

It's unlikely, therefore, that the upcoming GSM will have any impact on global temperatures, solar scientist Mathew Owens told The Sun.

"The small reduction in the Sun's energy associated with a solar minimum is vastly offset by effects caused by human activity, such as CO2 in the atmosphere," Professor Owens, of Reading University, said.

"Thus there will probably be no detectable effect on global climate."

So you want to know what Greta thinks about an Indian digital media website that sources content from a British tabloid which loosely cites a paper that mentions absolutely nothing about climate? I'd wager she doesn't think much about it.

He calls changes in the sun's energy a "small" effect. Its a typical arrogant scientist who overstates mankind's ability to control things. So he is saying that the net of the two is no detectable effect? So no global warming? Or is he actually saying the sun has no effect on our climate?

(02-04-2020 07:15 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Just ******* great.

I moved to Northern Michigan last year because due to global warming we were promised that we’d have all of the remaining fresh water and a temperate climate...I was also promised that this was moving from a USDA Zone 4 to a Zone 6 or 7...going to have to rethink my garden now.

I moved to West Michigan from Houston... last year I wore a light jacket all summer.

(02-05-2020 10:00 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(02-05-2020 08:30 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 07:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://in.mashable.com/science/11043/ea...the-planet

You couldn't get this published in the US. Its from India.

Its actual science. The cultists will blame extreme cold on global warming, but its a natural cycle.

"...Solar minimums are part of the Sun's natural life cycle and occur once every 11 years. However, 2020's minimum is going to be a special case. That's because it marks the start of a rare event known as a Grand Solar Minimum, in which energy emitted from the Sun plummets down even more than usual. These only occur once every 400 years or so.

As per Northumbria University expert Valentina Zharkova, the icy spells and wet summers could be around until 2053, when solar activity picks up again...."

All I want to know is what does Greta think about this?

What she thinks about an article from Mashable India?

An article that does not actually site anything from the report itself?

Instead, the links associated with this article led to:

• A NASA website that hypothesizes more ideal conditions for space exploration due to a decrease in solar sunspot activity (that mentions absolutely nothing about terrestrial climate)
• Two links to the sensationalist tabloid The Sun
  

That link to The Sun also conveniently mentions this towards the end of the article:

Quote:Fortunately, it's not all doom and gloom – other experts believe that Grand Solar Minimums have little effect on our climate.

Instead, the cold snap experienced during the Maunder Minimum was likely triggered by several factors, including plumes of ash coughed out by a series of giant volcanic eruptions.

We're also expecting global warming to increase average temperatures in the coming decades.

It's unlikely, therefore, that the upcoming GSM will have any impact on global temperatures, solar scientist Mathew Owens told The Sun.

"The small reduction in the Sun's energy associated with a solar minimum is vastly offset by effects caused by human activity, such as CO2 in the atmosphere," Professor Owens, of Reading University, said.

"Thus there will probably be no detectable effect on global climate."

So you want to know what Greta thinks about an Indian digital media website that sources content from a British tabloid which loosely cites a paper that mentions absolutely nothing about climate? I'd wager she doesn't think much about it.

While I wouldnt go as far as betting in this forum, I think you are right, she doesnt do much thinking about anything...

Come on you old cretins! Get woke Boomers! The Global Warming is causing the Mini Ice Age! Duh!

(02-05-2020 11:03 AM)bullet Wrote:  He calls changes in the sun's energy a "small" effect. Its a typical arrogant scientist who overstates mankind's ability to control things. So he is saying that the net of the two is no detectable effect? So no global warming? Or is he actually saying the sun has no effect on our climate?

I included that quote as example that your own sourced material cities an tabloid that admits other experts are not predicting a Mini Ice age. That said, I believe Professor Owens is saying that fluctuations in the number of sunspots observed on the sun during any given year has a very minimal role in climate change.

I don't think he's saying the net of the two is no global warming. Perhaps more like if this effect is true, the average global temperature would be 0.97 C instead of 0.98 C. The effects of increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere play a much greater role in climate change than a tiny fluctuation in the amount of energy output from the sun. At a maximum, it may slow down climate change slightly, but certainly won't stop it at the rate we're going.

Now let's get back to your article. How come the report cited in the article mentions absolutely nothing about climate change as a result of a decrease in observable sunspots? The paper mentions nothing about a "mini ice age", nor does it predict a drop in global temperatures. Yet all these tabloid articles are going all hog wild with this mini ice age claim. In fact, Valentina Zharkova, one of the three authors of the report, is the only one speculating about this and only did so after these tabloid newspapers printed sensationalist articles similar to the one you presented in this thread.

USA Today reached out to her for a comment on this and this was her response:

Quote:Zharkova, a professor of mathematics at Northumbria University in England, argued at Royal Astronomical Society’s national meeting last week that solar activity will decline drastically in the 2030s. She posited that the sun's activity will be comparable to a period in the 17th century known as the Maunder minimum. The period coincided with the “Little Ice Age,” when a cold spell fell over Europe and parts of North America.

Media outlets got wind of her research and some concluded it suggested the 2030s would be the world’s next ice age because of the drop in solar activity.

“In the press release, we didn’t say anything about climate change,” she told USA TODAY. “My guess is when they heard about Maunder minimum, they used Wikipedia or something to find out more about it.”

USA Today

Yes, the Maunder minimum overlapped with the last "Little Ice Age", but the Little Ice Age actually started well before the decrease in the number of observed sunspots and was most likely caused by an increase in volcanic activity. Oh and also, a decrease in "solar activity" does not necessarily mean a decrease in the amount of radiation or energy put out by the Sun. It just means that the number of sunspots visible on the sun will decrease.

(02-05-2020 11:59 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(02-05-2020 11:03 AM)bullet Wrote:  He calls changes in the sun's energy a "small" effect. Its a typical arrogant scientist who overstates mankind's ability to control things. So he is saying that the net of the two is no detectable effect? So no global warming? Or is he actually saying the sun has no effect on our climate?

I included that quote as example that your own sourced material cities an tabloid that admits other experts are not predicting a Mini Ice age. That said, I believe Professor Owens is saying that fluctuations in the number of sunspots observed on the sun during any given year has a very minimal role in climate change.

I don't think he's saying the net of the two is no global warming. Perhaps more like if this effect is true, the average global temperature would be 0.97 C instead of 0.98 C. The effects of increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere play a much greater role in climate change than a tiny fluctuation in the amount of energy output from the sun. At a maximum, it may slow down climate change slightly, but certainly won't stop it at the rate we're going.

Now let's get back to your article. How come the report cited in the article mentions absolutely nothing about climate change as a result of a decrease in observable sunspots? The paper mentions nothing about a "mini ice age", nor does it predict a drop in global temperatures. Yet all these tabloid articles are going all hog wild with this mini ice age claim. In fact, Valentina Zharkova, one of the three authors of the report, is the only one speculating about this and only did so after these tabloid newspapers printed sensationalist articles similar to the one you presented in this thread.

USA Today reached out to her for a comment on this and this was her response:

Quote:Zharkova, a professor of mathematics at Northumbria University in England, argued at Royal Astronomical Society’s national meeting last week that solar activity will decline drastically in the 2030s. She posited that the sun's activity will be comparable to a period in the 17th century known as the Maunder minimum. The period coincided with the “Little Ice Age,” when a cold spell fell over Europe and parts of North America.

Media outlets got wind of her research and some concluded it suggested the 2030s would be the world’s next ice age because of the drop in solar activity.

“In the press release, we didn’t say anything about climate change,” she told USA TODAY. “My guess is when they heard about Maunder minimum, they used Wikipedia or something to find out more about it.”

USA Today

Yes, the Maunder minimum overlapped with the last "Little Ice Age", but the Little Ice Age actually started well before the decrease in the number of observed sunspots and was most likely caused by an increase in volcanic activity. Oh and also, a decrease in "solar activity" does not necessarily mean a decrease in the amount of radiation or energy put out by the Sun. It just means that the number of sunspots visible on the sun will decrease.

Which those have coincided with a decrease in energy.

I give you credit for reading the paper, but the scientist did in fact get quoted talking about a mini ice age.

(02-05-2020 09:49 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-05-2020 08:30 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 07:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://in.mashable.com/science/11043/ea...the-planet

You couldn't get this published in the US. Its from India.

Its actual science. The cultists will blame extreme cold on global warming, but its a natural cycle.

"...Solar minimums are part of the Sun's natural life cycle and occur once every 11 years. However, 2020's minimum is going to be a special case. That's because it marks the start of a rare event known as a Grand Solar Minimum, in which energy emitted from the Sun plummets down even more than usual. These only occur once every 400 years or so.

As per Northumbria University expert Valentina Zharkova, the icy spells and wet summers could be around until 2053, when solar activity picks up again...."

All I want to know is what does Greta think about this?

Shame on you! Peace out.

(02-04-2020 07:15 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Just ******* great.

I moved to Northern Michigan last year because due to global warming we were promised that we’d have all of the remaining fresh water and a temperate climate...I was also promised that this was moving from a USDA Zone 4 to a Zone 6 or 7...going to have to rethink my garden now.

Are we talking the U.P. or do you still live below the bridge? Cold or not the U.P. is a wonderful place. Great people, good hunting, and if you have a job there a great place to live. I wouldn't worry too much about a mini ice age. Just make sure you have great insulation and a livable basement area and a nice nook in which to change for the outside and you'll be fine.

What it does mean is that if you can find that last bit of unclaimed beach front property on the Gulf Coast that you probably won't be under water in your lifetime.

And while I wish her no harm, maybe Greta will discover what it means to live in a world and in a solar system that goes through natural cycles which are vastly greater than the scope of a single life's experiences.