Global cooling anyone?

 

Three years of the sun in three minutes

In the three years since it first provided images of the sun in the spring of 2010, NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) has had virtually unbroken coverage of the sun's rise toward solar maximum, the ...

news.com.au

19 Jan 2014

Advertisement

THE Sun’s activity has plummeted to a century low, baffling scientists and possibly heralding a new mini-Ice Age.

"I've been a solar physicist for 30 years, and I've never seen anything quite like this," Richard Harrison, head of space physics at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, told the

"If you want to go back to see when the Sun was this inactive... you've got to go back about 100 years," he said.

The lull is particularly surprising because the Sun has reached its solar maximum, the point in its 11-year cycle where activity is at its peak.

The lacklustre climax also follows a solar minimum – the period when the Sun’s activity troughs – that was longer and lower than had been anticipated.

Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics at the University of Reading, told the BBC there was a significant chance that the Sun could become increasingly quiet.

He compared the current circumstances to the latter half of the 17th Century, when the sun went through an extremely quiet phase referred to as the Maunder Minimum.

That era of solar inactivity coincided with bitterly cold winters to Europe, where the Baltic Sea and London's River Thames froze over. Conditions were so harsh that some described it as a mini-Ice Age.

Solar Flare

Solar lull... The Sun hasn't been this quiet in 100 years, scientists say. Picture: NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory

Prof Lockwood says we may see a repeat if the Sun continues to dip, positing that the results would be dominantly felt in Europe due to the flow of an air current in the upper atmosphere that can drive the weather.

"It's a very active research topic at the present time, but we do think there is a mechanism in Europe where we should expect more cold winters when solar activity is low," he said.

I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Message 1 of 29
Latest reply
28 REPLIES 28

Global cooling anyone?


@spotweldersfriend wrote:
You'll have to try harder poddster.Svensmarks theory has been debunked by eminent  from around the globe.

Were these emimant physicists tied to global warming funds?

I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Message 21 of 29
Latest reply

Global cooling anyone?

There is nothing new about the fact that sun activity fluctuates, and as we are heading into the reduced solar activity phase we might be lucky that it may up to a point ofset the CO2 and other greenhouse gases effect.  But that does not mean that it will stop the climate change; in any case we should be doing all we can to change our poluting ways. 

 

1512679_10152181175148665_275347066_n.jpg

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Voltaire: “Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities” .
Message 22 of 29
Latest reply

Global cooling anyone?

Nova, I am all in favour of reducing pollution of any type, but co2 is not a pollutant.

 

It is in fact a by product of your life and is essential for plant life. Neither is carbon a pollutant, life on earth is carbon based.

 

Some believe that carbon is also a money spinner hence the carbon tax.

I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Message 23 of 29
Latest reply

Global cooling anyone?

CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas along with water vapour, methane etc.

More sobering news...
BP has reported that CO2 emissions are set to rise by nearly a third over the next two decades.

PS.Not all scientists work for the IPCC.
Message 24 of 29
Latest reply

Global cooling anyone?

Correction.BP reports greenhouse emissions to rise by about a third over the next two decades.
Message 25 of 29
Latest reply

Global cooling anyone?

John McLean ... The Big Oil-backed climate denier who hoodwinked Fairfax!

 


If you are right about climate change, why do you need people to lie about their credentials while being paid under the table?

 

Heres the lies Fairfax fell for

 

John McLean is the author of three peer-reviewed papers on climate and an expert reviewer for the latest IPCC report. He is also a climate data analyst and a member of the International Climate Science Coalition"

 

http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/01/13/the-big-oil-backed-climate-denier-who-hoodwinked-fairfax/

Message 26 of 29
Latest reply

Global cooling anyone?


POD for your information:
Cosmic ray flux on Earth has been monitored since the mid-20th century, and has shown no significant trend over that period.
Therefore !!!!!!!!.

"In fact cosmic ray flux has lagged behind the global temperature change since approximately 1970"

SF: "lets ask the "scientists" at the IPCC shall we, we can believe them can't we.......not"
You mean like all of the over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it.
However SF, do you discredit our own CSIRO and BOM?  If so, produce some credible information (sources)  to support your opinion. from your 3% will do (even if not credible)

POD :  "Nova, I am all in favour of reducing pollution of any type, but co2 is not a pollutant.
It is in fact a by product of your life and is essential for plant life.
POD ,   the debate is the effect of CO2 upon our planet's atmosphere as it is a greenhouse gas,  nothing to do with our , and  living organisms, physiology

How we choose to define the word 'pollutant' is a play in semantics. To focus on a few positive effects of carbon dioxide is to ignore the broader picture of its full impacts. The net result from increasing CO2 are severe negative impacts on our environment and the living conditions of future humanity.

POD :  "Nova, I am all in favour of reducing pollution of any type, but co2 is not a pollutant.
It is in fact a by product of your life and is essential for plant life.
POD  the debate is the affect of CO2 upon our planet's atmosphere/environment as it is a greenhouse gas, there is nor argument  as to its requirement for photosynthetic organisms and animals, however I suggest you take the time to research the physiological effects of increasing concentrations of CO2 (in the atmosphere and oceans) if you wish to raise that silly point. 

 

There is no argument that global temperatures are steadily increasing, forget the 17 and 14 year cherry picking nonsense, use meaningful periods/trends, and quote reliable scientific bodies.

Do you think  the CSIRO, BOM, NASA,  etc, etc, are reliable sources?

 

nɥºɾ

 

Message 27 of 29
Latest reply

Global cooling anyone?

John the debate also neglects to take into consideration the myriad of variables and instead concentrates on co2 even though water vapour is by far the most abundant green house gas.

 

John are you suggesting that cosmic radiation is caused by temperature??

I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Message 28 of 29
Latest reply

Global cooling anyone?


@poddster wrote:

Nova, I am all in favour of reducing pollution of any type, but co2 is not a pollutant.

 

It is in fact a by product of your life and is essential for plant life. Neither is carbon a pollutant, life on earth is carbon based.

 

Some believe that carbon is also a money spinner hence the carbon tax.


You are right, Poddy, CO2 is not a pollutant, we suck it into our lungs every time we take a breath and it does us no harm at all - as long as it does not replace too much of the oxygen we need for survival.  - if the percentage of CO2 in our lungs becomes too high,  we die.

In a similar way, scientists have determined what percentage of CO2 the atmosphere can absorb before the balance is critically disturbed.

Since you believe the scientists have got it wrong, I woud be interested to know what percentage you believe would be unsafe and what you base that belief on?

Message 29 of 29
Latest reply