Before you yell and state ( this is bs or fake ) please watch the quick video and follow the links, check with Nasa and other agencies.
I do hope that the models have some error but if not, winter is coming... Just wanted to share with you, and yes always take it with a pinch of salt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7whL9jvdL5s
Time to dust off my tin foil coat.
Title should be Solar mag field will be less ~10^-12 times (just throwing out the number) less than avg, not "The sun is going to sleep."
Good. This will counteract the runaway man made global warming and things will be perfect. [Sarcasm2]
I think I'll go ahead and put this on my list of things I don't really need to worry about.
I don't see how the sun can go to sleep with that bright light !!!
Awesome, no more "Gullible Warming" and sunburns......
I left my truck running for a few hours in the driveway to combat this. You are welcome!
Nope, things can never be perfect as long as you earn a paycheck that someone else wants.Quote:
Originally Posted by GilpinGuy
(Yes, I know you were being sarcastic)
I think it's about time we make a deal with all these climatologists... If you're right, we'll take the pain and do as you say. If you're wrong, you give up your degree and work a blue collar job.
Of course, none of this matters because we all died in 1974 from an ice age. ;)
yeah, and [skin] cancer rates will go down too!Quote:
Originally Posted by GilpinGuy
Actually the good thing about a Solar Minimum is that we'll see less disruption of technology by solar activity. Furthermore mankind is much better prepared and technologically advanced this time around so a long cold period could be compensated for and the death toll should be much lower.Quote:
Originally Posted by GilpinGuy
HOWEVER, the last quarter to half century of "man made climate disruption" alarmism will just go into hyper-drive once bad things actually start to happen and since they've already planted the anthropogenic seed in the minds of the people we'll see freedom and industrialization blamed instead of the truth of uncontrollable solar activity. So expect to see the man made climate change BS ratchet up with correlating increases in government power and decreases in liberty, property rights and cheap energy. Ironically progressive politics and environmentalist dogma will likely kill more people this time around.
It sleeps at night time. Duh!Quote:
Originally Posted by StagLefty
Time to invest in some equatorial real estate!
...Also, great news for anyone with oil or gas futures! [Neene3]
Not only because it's a non event, but I see no point in fretting over things I have no control over. If I'm going to die because of some cosmic event, I see no need in stressing about it for the remainder. Live life to the fullest while you can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Here's another article with predictions of a solar lull coming in about 15 years. This article can be found on Fox News today. I just chuckle, we're being told daily by the alarmist that it's all MAN MADE global warming, but here comes someone telling us that the sun, of all things, actually does have something to do with temperature here on earth. Who would've thunk it.
"Scientists warn that the Earth is just 15 years away from experiencing a "mini ice age" — something that hasn't happened in 300 years.Researchers in the U.K. created a new model of the Sun's solar cycles that allows them to make extremely accurate predictions of changes in solar activity like never before.
Solar cycles typically last 11 years and during that time, the north and south magnetic poles flip. It looks a lot like a heartbeat when graphed out. We're currently in Cycle 24.
The solar scientists say that the latest model shows the Sun's magnetic waves will become offset in Cycle 25 which peaks in 2022. Then, in Cycle 26, solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during between 2030 and 2040 causing this "mini ice age".
Professor Valentina Zharkova, who presented the findings at the National Astronomy Meeted in Wales, said, "In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other."
So what does that mean for us? Pretty much what you'd expect.
Bitter cold winters — cold enough to freeze River Thames in England, which is exactly what happened when the last "mini ice age" hit between 1645 and 1715."
I have no doubt that mankind has played a part in altering the natural pattern of global environment shifts, but it's not like we are the sole cause of it. This has been going on for millenia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
Holy shit that is a lot of words but it's pretty much right on the money IMO.
Don't you try to tell me that some ball of fire in the sky millions of miles away has ANYTHING to do with how we are destroying the earth and making it warmer, or colder.. or whatever we are doing.. just hogwash.. HOGWASH!
Global cooling is far more dangerous to life than global warming.
We might have some influence on the climate, but it isn't quantifiable.
Do you feel that non-native, invasive species have quantifiable effects to the environments in which they are introduced?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
The article needs to be more specific. Is some huge ass star or some neutron star going to be near our solar system from our galaxy spinning to offset the mag field? Is our Sun just randomly decided to have lesser fusion? Is super nova from 60bil l/y going to effect our mag field from the sun?
If these models are so accurate, why aren't they throwing temperature numbers out versus simply stating "60% reduction in solar activity"?
Also, while they're predicting a start time for these cycles and this "mini ice ice", I didn't read nor hear a predicted year when things would return to "normal".
Were those things there and I just missed them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by theGinsue
Just thinking out loud here, but 60% probably comes across more clear than "only 1,200 sunbillion galvatrons next cycle"
Interested to know the answer to the second question as well. Does solar activity change in Q1 and not affect Earth until Q3?
I wonder if any of these alarmist scientists ever stopped to consider if maybe we're living in the age of the anomaly...and maybe that's why humanity has thrived. Now we go back to the "normal" colder period and much of the population will die off for various reasons. The time mankind has been on earth is just a second or so in terms of geological time. Maybe we don't have enough of an historical record to determine what is "normal" in terms of climate.
This is the cause of all the debate. There is no "normal". The climate of this planet has always been changing, even when <gasp> humans weren't here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
I thought this would be a place for this. SOURCE
Behold the coming apocalypse as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970:
1. "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." — Harvard biologist George Wald
2. "We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation." — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner
3. "Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." — New York Times editorial
4. "Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
5. "Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." — Paul Ehrlich
6. "It is already too late to avoid mass starvation," — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day
7. "Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
8. "In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." — Life magazine
9. "At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
10. "Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." — Paul Ehrlich
11. "By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn't any.'" — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
12. "[One] theory assumes that the earth's cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born." — Newsweek magazine
13. "The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt
Ahhhhh science. That was a good post.
Perhaps because -- like true scientists -- they are sticking with what they can predict. Their study is about the solar cycles and they show how different cycles will be nullifying each other during solar cycle 26 which is why they can predict a 1 significant figure effect on solar activity. They're not claiming to be able to quantize how the change in solar activity will affect terrestrial temperatures although the gross effect is well known thanks to the Little Ice Age.Quote:
Originally Posted by theGinsue
I haven't read the actual paper, just skimmed a summary, but I expect the cycles that nullify each other should start drifting apart again but the Little Ice Age lasted about 300 years in total (some people mark the start at about 1350 rather than 1550 so would claim a 500 year duration. IIRC my astronomy classes correctly, the smallest period solar cycle (there are many different cycles at play) is about 22-23 years (11-12 years between minima and maxima) so there would be some variation over the course of decades but we'd be looking for the longer period cycles to move out of their minima in order to "return to normal" (whatever normal is).
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Holy non-sequitur, Batman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Our environment is so chaotic, its mechanisms are not fully understood. The models have all been wrong and are unable to predict with any accuracy. When that's the reality, the contribution of mankind is indiscernible.
Saw this in the headlines today; News about an imminent ‘mini ice age’ is trending — but it’s not true
Quote:
Even if the upcoming decline in solar activity turns out to be as Zharkova’s suggests, scientists who study the sun say we can’t be sure how it will affect Earth’s climate.
“We have some interesting hints that solar activity is associated with climate, but we don’t understand the association,” Dean Pesnell, a NASA scientist who worked on one of the 2011 studies about the grand minimum, told National Geographic at the time.
I wasn't trying to set you up for a gotcha question or anything, but I don't understand how people can entirely dismiss the possibility of human activity having an affect on the environment. It's one thing to disagree with the alarmists about how to head into the future, but to outright declare that whatever effect we have is not quantifiable, seems to be just as difficult of a concept for me to adhere.
I don't understand the connection that humans are somehow "non-native, invasive species".
I was going to point out the relatively small size, and numbers of an invasive species compared to humans, that build structures and clear flora, etc.
Beavers and wolves have effects on their local climate. I saw that in a movie once.
Another movie convinced me that after a nuclear apocalypse, apes would evolve and take over the planet. Now if I could only recall the name of that ape planet movie. [shithitsfan]
I think it was Jersey Shore.