Ice age on the way (merged threads)

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Blast From The Past, i am also a cycle enthusiast but i would like to know what the solar maximum in 2011 is expected to produce in terms of solar activity??

I would also like to know if there is a sixteen year solar cycle (47, 63, 79), if this is the case, then the two cycles will coincide during 2011.

?

SB

I don't know of one. 11 and 22, Gleissberg 80-90 etc but of course what people must be aware of is that the 11 year cycle isn't exact...it ranges from 9 to 14 years for example.

As regards to the maxima it is expected to be juicy .

BFTP

[West is Best]

each to our own favorite, I have skied at Kitzbuhel, and Kirchberg along with Seefeld. Many many years ago my first ski, no instruction either, was down the side of Mt Troodos in Cyprus. Amazing how daft one can be at a young age!

j

Does it feel as bizarre to you as to me discussing skiing in this sort of heatwave?

Anyway, I love Murren - stunning scenery. I haven't skiied at Wengen but I've been there a few times. I may have mentioned two years ago we were skiing at Murren in very difficult conditions when we met up with the famous Peter Lunn who, at the age of 89, guided me down a run and then, to my complete embarassment, I fell over at the end. It's all the more embarassing when you think you're not a bad skiier.

That famous tryptych of Monch, Eiger, Jungfrau is so stunning isn't it? The first time I ever went there I couldn't believe mountains could be so steep - accentuated of course by the depth of the Lauterbrunnen valley.

I'm an avid reader of climbing books too, and some of the stories of the north wall of the Eiger are amazing.

Edited July 18, 2006 by West is Best

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I'm an avid reader of climbing books too, and some of the stories of the north wall of the Eiger are amazing.

[Weatherfanman]

Hello All,

How wonderful to be hearing you all chat about the Swiss Alps with such fondness. Myself and my new wife to be are off honeymooning on Monday to Grindelwald, so watch this space for a few piccies on our return. The Alps in winter for skiing are amazing, but I think i almost prefer them in the summer months, the alpine meadows in bloom, the marmots making the funny noise that only marmots do, and miles of miles of trails to treck in the clean fresh air.......... wonderful!

Paul.

MODS: Sorry, i know this has diddly squat to do with Environment Change, but please allow a married man to be his moment for reminiscing............

Edited July 18, 2006 by Weatherfanman

[Stratos Ferric]

Hang on, I got as far as line three of Daniel's rather predictable starter. "Ice Age Now"; ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Out of interest, does that site ever report ANY data regarding record breaking warmth? Not that I suspect it of unbridled bias...

It did fill the media (newspapers and TV), so the attempt to create interest existed. Whether it was embraced by a majority of the population or not surely mirrors the reception of GW today!

Time will tell.

However

seems contradictory; Either climate change was of interest (ghg theory) or it wasn't.

It can't be both.

SS,

GG theory is a matter of physics. Climate change is a branch of either applied physics which happens to have broader common relevance. Not sure, therefore, that the two are, as you seem to be suggesting, mutually inclusive.

[Dawlish]

That famous tryptych of Monch, Eiger, Jungfrau is so stunning isn't it? The first time I ever went there I couldn't believe mountains could be so steep - accentuated of course by the depth of the Lauterbrunnen valley.

Yes, amazing. The view from the revolving restaurant on the top of then Schilthhorn is one of the most stunning views in the whole world.

Paul

PS Triptych - great word. A perfect description of the 3 peaks. There is a sort of iconography about that view. If I was daft enough to believe in god, I think I could also believe that she could live there!

Edited July 18, 2006 by Dawlish

[Stratos Ferric]

There are very few people that believe waht Ice Age Now is suggesting however due to the fact that many websites are biased towards Global Warming related articles, i believe that websites such as Ice Age Now are fundimentally important because the website presents articles relating to the other side of the arguament, by looking at two oppositely biased websites, you may drw your own conclusions.

SB, whilst I understand the sympathy of your point, the fact is flawed. If I walked up this train and asked 100 people for their views on macroeconomic cycles, or market primacy, there would be some people who know things and stated them, some people who don't know anything and say nothing, and a fair rump of people who might have an opinion, desire or attitude, but who essentially know nothing, but would not less this latter stop them from voicing their view.

The problem with the "all views are equal" argument is that when measured in terms of quality of content and knowledge informing the thinking, and objectivity of opinion, not all views ARE equal. Interpolating between misguided points of view is rather like assuming that putting a broken drive shaft into a broken engine will miraculously produce motive power. It won't.

Ice Age now, as with any bigotted viewpoint, would have more credence if it occasionally acknowledged the other point of view. Not only does it not do this, but it blatantly misrepresents, or alternatively represents only very selectively, the data that is there. Like a good few posters on here come the winter, it is a monument to hope over reality.

[The Penguin]

Your last comment may be interpreted as sacralege.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

The problem with the "all views are equal" argument is that when measured in terms of quality of content and knowledge informing the thinking, and objectivity of opinion, not all views ARE equal. Interpolating between misguided points of view is rather like assuming that putting a broken drive shaft into a broken engine will miraculously produce motive power. It won't.

Ice Age now, as with any bigotted viewpoint, would have more credence if it occasionally acknowledged the other point of view. Not only does it not do this, but it blatantly misrepresents, or alternatively represents only very selectively, the data that is there. Like a good few posters on here come the winter, it is a monument to hope over reality.

[snowsure]

SS,

GG theory is a matter of physics. Climate change is a branch of either applied physics which happens to have broader common relevance. Not sure, therefore, that the two are, as you seem to be suggesting, mutually inclusive.

SF

It is always nice to have you comment on one of my posts. I learn from our exchanges.

So tell me this:

Is GG and GW more to do with Geography than Physics? In the scheme of works for secondary education in England, it (climate) appears in Geography rather than Physics.

As far as the mutually incompatible side of the argument goes, if GHG were known of since the 1900's then a numpty would have noticed a link with GW. It is surely unthinkable to see that the GHG problem was acknowledged in the 70's without an interest in the climate, ergo an indication of GW occuring.

Your comments on the following are invited:

http://www.open2.net/landscapemysteries/big_freeze_p.html

especially the last paragraph. The author? Dr Janet Sumner, a research fellow at the Open University.

[Dawlish]

SF

It is always nice to have you comment on one of my posts. I learn from our exchanges.

So tell me this:

Is GG and GW more to do with Geography than Physics? In the scheme of works for secondary education in England, it (climate) appears in Geography rather than Physics.

As far as the mutually incompatible side of the argument goes, if GHG were known of since the 1900's then a numpty would have noticed a link with GW. It is surely unthinkable to see that the GHG problem was acknowledged in the 70's without an interest in the climate, ergo an indication of GW occuring.

Your comments on the following are invited:

http://www.open2.net/landscapemysteries/big_freeze_p.html

especially the last paragraph. The author? Dr Janet Sumner, a research fellow at the Open University.

Janet Sumner is repeating the Hollywood end of GW producing a shutdown of the NAD/thermohaline circultion, snowsure. It is an almost flippant comment to illustrate her article on Glacial and Interglacial periods (she is a vulcanologist, not a climatologist). The article is not written for an academic audience, at all and I suspect she's thrown this in as a parting comment, to stimulate the reader into further thought (maybe, with a bit of luck!). It stimulates me to thinking; "why on earth did she say that", when the amount of scientific evidence for the Gulf Stream slowing, due to this extra melting, is precisely nil.

Paul

[weatherfan]

The problem with the "all views are equal" argument is that when measured in terms of quality of content and knowledge informing the thinking, and objectivity of opinion, not all views ARE equal. Interpolating between misguided points of view is rather like assuming that putting a broken drive shaft into a broken engine will miraculously produce motive power. It won't.

Ice Age now, as with any bigotted viewpoint, would have more credence if it occasionally acknowledged the other point of view. Not only does it not do this, but it blatantly misrepresents, or alternatively represents only very selectively, the data that is there. Like a good few posters on here come the winter, it is a monument to hope over reality.

SB

Nice post, you are consistent to say the least. Point of weakness in your argument is that Climatology has NOT ben cracked. Even current levels of knowledge are somewhat short of the mark as regards to definitism, your comparisons are misleading and at best unfair because a scientist, although packed/equiped with data cannot accurately predict weather per say beyond 'reliable' timeframe which is a week!? Trends possibly but then trends are trends and people on here have demonstrated ability to highlight a trend. A complete and utter novice could theoretically be as accurate as any expert or scientist to future prediction...within reason one would suggest...but who really knows

BFTP

Some also have to remember that when they read websites off the internet they need to know the souses to them.Like Ice age now.Is run not by a scientist or a forecaster but by a Auther who got into climate change or in this case ice ages.And like alot of Authers to get people to by there books he made an web site about it base on his opinion.The reason why I beleave he does it talk much about the other side of the debate much is he is more on the cold side of the debate then the warm side.But that alot of the problems in my opinion with eather side of this debate.Is each side talks about the one sided exstream and not enough about the hole and big picture instead if we have any storms,heat wave coldwaves,tornados snow storms,floods it eather blamed on global warming or on the other side of the debate a inpending iceage.

Edited July 19, 2006 by weatherfan

[snowsure]

Janet Sumner is repeating the Hollywood end of GW producing a shutdown of the NAD/thermohaline circultion, snowsure. It is an almost flippant comment to illustrate her article on Glacial and Interglacial periods (she is a vulcanologist, not a climatologist). The article is not written for an academic audience, at all and I suspect she's thrown this in as a parting comment, to stimulate the reader into further thought (maybe, with a bit of luck!). It stimulates me to thinking; "why on earth did she say that", when the amount of scientific evidence for the Gulf Stream slowing, due to this extra melting, is precisely nil.

Paul

Dawlish

As a vulcanologist whose research area is environmental impact of volcanic activity, isn't D Sumner well placed to comment on such matters as climate change?

[Dawlish]

Dawlish

As a vulcanologist whose research area is environmental impact of volcanic activity, isn't D Sumner well placed to comment on such matters as climate change?

Yes, maybe you are right and maybe her area of expertise stretches to being able to comment on the NAD, but it's stretching things and she hasn't any scope to give the full scientific story in that article. We can go into the ins and outs of this "The NAD is likely to shut down tomorrow" scaremongering, because we have time and licence, but all she can do is to try to write interestingly for the commission.

Unfortunately her interesting writing implies some scientific evidence which does not exist......yet!

Paul

[MP-R]

This may be off the point but I was in the Alps last week and our guide told us that the Glacier du Tour, east of Chamonix, France has receded 54m since 2001 and 432m since 1945 (the end of WW1).

[snowsure]

Yes, maybe you are right and maybe her area of expertise stretches to being able to comment on the NAD, but it's stretching things and she hasn't any scope to give the full scientific story in that article. We can go into the ins and outs of this "The NAD is likely to shut down tomorrow" scaremongering, because we have time and licence, but all she can do is to try to write interestingly for the commission.

Unfortunately her interesting writing implies some scientific evidence which does not exist......yet!

Paul

Your comments are appreciated. However, I would like to share with you two sites that may question your last sentence.

http://www.essc.psu.edu/~bjhaupt/posters/i...ll/icp6msz.html

(Perhaps you could review the authors credentials before discrediting him.)

and

http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/research/deepwater.htm

snowsure

Thanks to Prof R Spicer and Dr Sumner of the Open University for help with the above.

[Dawlish]

Your comments are appreciated. However, I would like to share with you two sites that may question your last sentence.

http://www.essc.psu.edu/~bjhaupt/posters/i...ll/icp6msz.html

(Perhaps you could review the authors credentials before discrediting him.)

and

http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/research/deepwater.htm

snowsure

Thanks to Prof R Spicer and Dr Sumner of the Open University for help with the above.

Thanks for your artcle references, snowsure, they were interesting, but I don't understand how it shows that the NAD will shut down, which is what Dr. Sumner implied.

There is no current evidence that this is happening - what I have always said and, at the moment, it is true, despite what many would like to believe and despite what many write. Neither does it change anything I said about Dr Sumner's article. There was nothing whatsoever about her credentials on the article apart from being a vulcanologist and it is rather harsh to state that I was discrediting anybody(!). The article was certainly not written for a scientific audience.

If you can lead me to any actual evidence of an NAD shutdown, I'd really would be the first to be very interested to read it.

Paul

Edited July 19, 2006 by Dawlish

[snowsure]

Thanks for your artcle references, snowsure, they were interesting, but I don't understand how it shows that the NAD will shut down, which is what Dr. Sumner implied.

There is no current evidence that this is happening - what I have always said and, at the moment, it is true, despite what many would like to believe and despite what many write. Neither does it change anything I said about Dr Sumner's article. There was nothing whatsoever about her credentials on the article apart from being a vulcanologist and it is rather harsh to state that I was discrediting anybody(!). The article was certainly not written for a scientific audience.

If you can lead me to any actual evidence of an NAD shutdown, I'd really would be the first to be very interested to read it.

Paul

Hi Paul

Sorry for the unclear mention of "discrediting". It was not aimed at you but at the wider forum audience.

I am currently trying to locate some research that shows the opposite angle. As I mentioned several days ago, I have read about 90 peer-reviewed articles and a substantial amount point toward accelerated GW.

However, I offer http://cepsar.open.ac.uk/pers/r.a.spicer/pics/d39109.pdf as a document questioning the validity of current thinking. This was produced as a result of the OU climateprediction.net exercise. (The report date is 01/05 so perhaps current thinking is not questioned! )

I am in contact with one of the authors of http://www.aosb.org/PDF/XIX.pdf (The Southampton study) to try and locate current research suggesting a reduction of the thermohaline circulation and the wider global impact of such an event.

I may come back empty handed though!

Point taken about the scientific audience though. Perhaps more people (not you) should investigate the credentials of people rather than relying on the brief resumee on a web page.

Regards

SS

[snowsure]

I am in contact with one of the authors of http://www.aosb.org/PDF/XIX.pdf (The Southampton study) to try and locate current research suggesting a reduction of the thermohaline circulation and the wider global impact of such an event.

I may come back empty handed though!

Well, not empty handed. I have received 2 pdf documents (current research) which may question your own standpoint on future events. However the documents are not for me to transmit. They are from "Nature" and "Science" magazine which you have to subscribe to, to view the articles! (All sounds very fishy I suppose but I am not at liberty to make them available.)

The abstract of the first is at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/312/5782/1929

The second is by Gabrielle Walker and published in Nature at http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060612/full/441802a.html

Sorry that I cannot offer any more than this. Peer reviewed articles are expensive! Perhaps if the research was made available freely then there would be no prejudice against new ideas!

SS

[summer blizzard]

I have a theory, while we know that the Maunder Minimum caused the Little Ice Age, there was also a supposedly weaker NAD.

If we assume that that is the case for a minute, according to NASA, the NAD weakens and strengthens in seventy year cycles however instead of strengthening sice 1970, the flow has increased, could it be that because of the upcoming Gliessburg Minima that the recent observed weakening of the NAD is entirely natural, of course for that to be the case, there would of had to have been a pronounced warming before the Manuder Minima and you would have to support my veiwpoint that the majority of warming has been natural.

[parmenides3]

SOS at Bangor (can't find the link), has sunspot activity-linked irradiance increases causing ocean temperature variances of +/- 0.03 C.

With ref. to link, only says: 'many climatic records how similar periodicity'.

So, ice age unlikely.

Sorry, no skiing stories. Don't do skiing. Like mountains though. my friend once fell of Ben Nevis (but that's not why I like them).

[Dawlish]

Hi Paul

Sorry for the unclear mention of "discrediting". It was not aimed at you but at the wider forum audience.

I am currently trying to locate some research that shows the opposite angle. As I mentioned several days ago, I have read about 90 peer-reviewed articles and a substantial amount point toward accelerated GW.

However, I offer http://cepsar.open.ac.uk/pers/r.a.spicer/pics/d39109.pdf as a document questioning the validity of current thinking. This was produced as a result of the OU climateprediction.net exercise. (The report date is 01/05 so perhaps current thinking is not questioned! )

I am in contact with one of the authors of http://www.aosb.org/PDF/XIX.pdf (The Southampton study) to try and locate current research suggesting a reduction of the thermohaline circulation and the wider global impact of such an event.

I may come back empty handed though!

Point taken about the scientific audience though. Perhaps more people (not you) should investigate the credentials of people rather than relying on the brief resumee on a web page.

Regards

SS

Cheers SS. I have read the Southampton study in detail. They found that one N to S (not S, to N) current had decreased by 30%. It does not in any way suggest that this is evidence for a NAD reduction, or shutdown. The authors make this quite clear. The measurements were compared to data that was over 5 years old too. It's a good study, totally valid, but it does not point to decrease in strength of the NAD. Instead, it points to a poosibility that it could happen, if the reduction was replicated across the North Atlantic and counsels more research.

Prof Wadham's brilliantly original research is another study, oft quoted as predicting an NAD shutdown. Again, if you read it, it doesn't, but people don't read it, read what the press or others have misunderstood from it and still try to say that it says what it doesn't!! It really is very frustrating to keep repeating it.

Thanks for trying to dig. I really, really, appreciate that, it shows an enquiring mind and one which is not prepared to just repeat!!

Paul

PS I agree wth your last statement 100% - and that's from someone who likes statistics!!

[Arrows]

Well global warming is a reality, that's for sure. But at the end of the day people WON'T change their ways and it will only get worse. Thus, we WILL see more extremes in years to come. I suppose in 2030 it will be the norm to have boiling weather and freezing winters and it will be the norm to my kids.

[Guest Mike W]

Except for the freezing winters 'theredarrows'.

Edited July 20, 2006 by Mike W

[Dawlish]

Exceopt for the freezing winters, theredarrows.

Neat - and much more likely to be true!