Rare Drop in Sunspot Activity Could Cause Little Ice Age

[AmPat]

Like I said, I'm not the climate expert that Wilbur is. :D

I assumed that underwater masses would lose heat faster because I lose heat faster in water than air. :D

Wilbur will be in here as soon as he can postulate a ridiculus theory to blame the sunspots on AGW. I still suspect it's because we need more Prius' eco cars.

[The Night Owl]

Answer: No.

Are we headed for a new ice age?

Much ado was made over the recent news that the Sun’s magnetic activity may be cooling off over the next few years. Can this mean the Earth itself will literally cool off, slipping into an ice age? Some news sites are reporting it that way (of course, the execrable Daily Mail uses the headline "Earth facing a mini-Ice Age ‘within ten years’ due to rare drop in sunspot activity"; which isn’t even within a glancing blow of reality).

The answer — spoiler alert! — is almost certainly "no". I want to make sure that’s clear, because I will bet essentially any amount of money that some climate change denial sites will run with this story and claim that we don’t need to worry about global warming. That’s baloney, and what follows is why. The reasons take a minute to explain, but of course that’s where the cool stuff (haha!) is. So let’s take this one step at a time. And if you have the attention span of an E. coli bacterium, you can skip down to the conclusion section.

[Note: a lot of this is taken from my book "Death from the Skies!", where I interviewed approximately a bazillion people. One in particular was Caspar Ammann, who was very helpful in explaining the solar connection with the Little Ice Age to me.]

...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...-a-new-ice-age

[Apache]

Can you give me the winning lottery numbers?

[fettpett]

ooh....mr TNO is back....

[Rockntractor]

Time for another owl movement!

[djones520]

Answer: No.



http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...-a-new-ice-age

Ok, now that you've stated our response, provide your reasoning.

I'll be waiting.

[The Night Owl]

Ok, now that you've stated our response, provide your reasoning.

I thought the article I posted did a good job explaining why a solar minimum will probably not lead to an ice age, so assume my position to be based on that.

I'll be waiting.

What is it with you guys and the waiting? Are you guys trying to be dramatic or something?

[Rockntractor]

I thought the article I posted did a good job explaining why a solar minimum will probably not lead to an ice age, so assume my position to be based on that.



What is it with you guys and the waiting? Are you guys trying to be dramatic or something?

Trying to give you every chance to be honest.

[djones520]

I thought the article I posted did a good job explaining why a solar minimum will probably not lead to an ice age, so assume my position to be based on that.



What is it with you guys and the waiting? Are you guys trying to be dramatic or something?

No, you just tend to dissapear for a while, so I'll most likely end up waiting for a response.

As to the article that you linked, that guy is all over the place, and really is only supporting the argument of those he's trying to refute in the end.

He goes on to argue that the weakening solar activity directly lead to effects in the atmosphere that affected the Jet Stream, aiding in the Little Ice Age.

The dependence is complicated, but the bottom line is the jet stream is weaker when there’s less ozone (it has to do with latitude-dependent temperature gradients across the upper atmosphere; those gradients are strong in winter and weak in summer). Ozone creation depends on UV from the Sun, which is weaker during a solar minimum. See where this is going? Weaker magnetic activity on the Sun means less ozone which means a weaker jet stream which means it meanders more, bringing cold air south in some places.

His own words.

He tries to throw you off by stating that the Maunder minimum started long after the "Little Ice Age" did, but he doesn't tell you about the Sporer and Wolf minimums that took place during the earlier periods of it. The three minimums got progressively "stronger", and there is a direct correlation between those and the lowering temperatures in that period of time. The coldest temps were associated with the strongest minimum.





I mean look at that. Wolf minimum, drop in temps. Sporer minimum, bigger drop in temps. Maunder minimum, bigger drop in temps.

So don't expect me to take what he's saying with any value. Either he's trying to mislead, or he's just not doing enough research.

[txradioguy]

Given the fact that the Eco Weenies have been caught...again...fudging numbers to support their Global Warming Hoax...I'd trust the stuff my 13 y/o son tells me about the environment over these so called "experts".