Ice age on the way (merged threads)

[kippure]

Heres a link to an article that shows how much science and scientist,s know about predicting such cooling effects and how things change so very fast.

Its rather long .

Here

[Stratos Ferric]

I think it is important to see both sides of the IAN/AGW debate.

I am reminded by the views of Galileo Galilei which were considered by the Roman Catholic Church at the time of the inquisition to be heretical.

Might the IAN side be onto something? Perhaps one of the very long term side effects of GW is a cooling trend for Western Europe?

It would be very very hard to credit IceAgeDrivel with the critical faculty required to assess the merits in any argument. You might as well ask Hitler for his views on racial mixing, such is the inherent bias in IAN(D). SO far as I can gauge it's put together by one (or a very few) people, whose agenda is either blatantly anti-GW an / or romantically attached to cold weather.

For those wanting a look at something closer to the original article that Daniel (or his source) rather exaggerates (and this is entirey typical of IAD by the way, selectively culling data - go and see the list of growing glaciers for a fantastic example of masked selectivity) see the following link.

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/75628-2/

Having purused it I'm happy to accept the guy's theory, though he admits himself he's sailing against the prevailing wind in the scientific community; changes in solar flux would change the climate, and have been reasonably well matched to past glaciations (hence Milankovitch's cycles). My suspicion is that this guy may have found a new cycle that nobody else has spotted.

You're correct about Galileo, but at that time there was not the huge body of capability that we have around the world today monitoring and testing and arguing. It's a lot harder to sneak a paradigm shifting theory in under the radar, and even if you do it gets tested very very quickly.

According to a Russian Scientist the current warm spell would sone end and we would suffer another little ice age which would reach its peak around 2060.

As I read the article Daniel, the scientist actually suggests that any cooling might start to gether pace around 2055-2060:

Mr. Abdusamatov told Pravda.Ru that the new Ice Age will start very slowly. According to the scientist, the process will gather pace in 2050-55.

Abdusamatov compares the imminent reduction of temperatures with Maunder's minimum of solar activity registered in 1645-1715 (named so in honour of the English astronomer of the 19th century, Walter Maunder), when all canals froze in Holland and severe cold forced many people to leave their settlements. “The coldest years of the middle of the 21st century will be warmer than at the end of the 17th century,” the scientist clarified.

Even if it is a good prediction anyway I think, looking at his words (the last sentence in particular), you've rather sensationalised it, don't you think?

[snowsure]

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/75628-2/

Check out the story of the Sun-eater. That should send a few sceptics on here whizzing around the room.

[parmenides3]

Ok, Off my back now please. Piggyback rides are not my speciality. I'm not offering any credence whatsoever to the article in particular, and I rather suspect that youu are mis-reading what I'm trying to say.

Actually, the very motion of the NAD is at least in part the result of the difference between freshwater and saltwater. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that a large enough intrusion of freshwater would hurt the atlantic conveyor to at last some degree. There is also evidence that suggests that a complete stop of the NAD could result in a significant freeze of some sort. All of these are possibility, but admittedly by no means facts. There is however little evidence to support a claim that it's a fact that it won't happen.

Where you got CET from I don't know - I certainly didn't mention it. Nor did I inferr that I had accepted anything from any scientist, nor did I use the quoted phrase "according to a scientist", not least in the context you used.

As for speculation being worthless - it is the seed of every scientific hypothesis in existance - far from meaningless. Neither are "could"s or "maybe"s meaningless. They have a lot of meaning. The post I was responding to gave it as a clear fact that nothing could cause a substantial freeze within 100 years, and that was plain wrong. It is a possibility, not a fact. Things could indeed happen in the next 100 years to start an ice age. Whether they will or not is irrelevant - I was merely pointing out that the statement made was incorrect. The exact sentence I was responding to was "The only circumstance under which rapid cooling might conceivably take place at any time in the next 100 years is if there were a very, very large volcanic eruption, ..."

Coming back to the article, I actually don't believe a word of it without hearing the evidence for myself, and my original post in this thread explains this concept quite accurately - he's either "in the know" more than anyone else in the world, or an alarmist nutter that's making sensationalist statements, with the latter being more likely on the face of it.

As for the ice barrier melting into the north atlantic, I would have thought that anybody clued up on such things would know that that particular lake I was referring to doesn't exist in such volumes anymore... It was Lake Agassiz, and is thought to have triggered an iceage. I was being somewhat sarcastic while also attempting to point out that stranger things have happened and in spite of our knowledge, we don't know it all and so there may be risks in the next hundred years that are as yet unknown - perhaps, incredibly unlikely as though it is, this Russian scientist had discovered one.

I apologise for the somewhat over-reactive feelings written into the sub-text of this post, but I'm not usually too happy when I'm being berated on the basis of words I've never said being put into my mouth.

I apologise of you thought I was getting at you Crimsone. I do not wish to offend anybody on NW. I will try to deal with the points you have made one at a time. The reference to CET is next to your post.

With reference to the possibility of thermohaline shutdown. After substantial research, I wrote a post covering this subject, in which I referred to several recent scientific articles. My post on this strand was a summary of those findings. The conclusion was, as I said before, that a shutdown/freeze scenario is no longer considered scientifically feasible, in the way it had been before.

I do not consider speculation to be worthless - only speculations of the kind Daniel invariably posts, which have no substance. I stand by my original statement - that there is only one conceivable situation - conceivable being the key word here.

I did not suggest that you believed Daniel. I was commenting on the original post.

Of course I am aware of the Lake Agassiz hypothesis. This was also discussed in the other strand; it has been considered a plausible contender for the onset of the Younger Dryas. following a THC shutdown; current papers now cast doubt on the likelihood of this.

As I hope you will see, I was, perhaps rather lazily, attempting to summarise a long discussion which has already taken place on NW, quite recently. Please read the strands, I am sure you will enjoy them. And please do not imagine that I was berating you; the intention, as with all my posts, is to try to inform, never to criticise genuine interest.

I hope this clears the air somewhat. But I stand by my original statement.

P

[crimsone]

No problem Parmenides

... as long as you realise of course that I was only referring to one specific comment. I think we've largely both clarified ourselves now - It seems You were referencing things others had said also and I took them to be directed my way

Of course, I still stand by the fact that speculation is a useful tool that allows you to see when something isn't a fact by nature of accepting the possibilities of alternatives both known or unknown. As such, I have to stand by my original statement that a volcanic eruptin is not the ONLY thing that could be considered a possibility for the cause of an iceage within a hundred years - which is really all I was aiming at

Edited August 28, 2006 by crimsone

[summer blizzard]

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=31149

This is what he is talking about, the Gliessburg Minima which is an entirely plausable theory however i would suggest that everybody read this thread and that the moderators merge the two threads together, it has over 140 replies, so it should answer most questions.

[rob-lancs]

Posted a bit of background to this in another thread, along with my attempt at describing the thermohaline circulation.

If we want scientific info, how about the info in this:

Seager, R., Battisti, D.S., Yin, J., Gordon, N., Naik, N., Clement, A.C. and Cane, M.C. (2002)

Is the Gulf Stream responsible for Europe’s mild winters?

Q.J.R. Meteorol. Soc. 128, pp.2563-2586.

This suggests the gulf stream only contributes 3c to our temps. 9c from the atmosphere and 8c is released from the oceans.

[The Eagle]

I stand by what I said earlier.

If daniel posts this stuff every week then that's over the top but what happens between now and 2060 is anybody's guess.

Obviously it's is 1000-1 on that we wont have an ice age by then but you never know.

There is a chance and never say never!!

We have already seen major changes in the last 5years with the warmest Summer temp ever last year followed by the coldest Winter in 10years.

This time lasy year we wondering would we ever see a CET month below the average again and yet we see several months this year including August for many parts.

So my advice is folk should lay off and let a guy dream if he wants to.

Of course it would be more of a nightmare really

Moan over I think all this drab weather is driving me potty

C'mon Sunderland you just signed a Champion today i.e a corkman!

By the way iciles Cork may not freeze over but at least we can win GAA games down here :lol:

I agree JS about the coldest winter in ten years (but did it bring us much snow!?) but really do you honestly see an ice age about to begin????

BTW GAA dont go there, im in a mood (I thank god every day Cork is not the Capital)

Then again if us Dubs froze over we would have to emigrate there - oh god!

Edited August 29, 2006 by Icicles

[Stratos Ferric]

Only problem I see is that IAN has not yet been disproved in terms of "something" will happen by "a specific date."

In terms of requiring credence, credence is a belief and people have a belief in IAN so credence is not required. However proof is required and that is lacking.

"An ice age any day soon" is pretty much a legitimate claim as is "snowsure to win the lottery any day soon." Wishful thinking, potentially possible but not very likely.

My old Physics teacher used to say "If it's not happened yet, it probably won't!" in response to most questions like "Will life on earth be wiped out by a massive asteroid strike?"

It amazes me that so many people (me included) get drawn in by Daniel's posts!

It doesn't amaze me, and more than the flood of people who, it seems, are repeatedly drawn into advert in newspapers offering easy millions / get rich quick schemes. Invariably the only people who benefit are the ones who dupes the masses by placing the ads in the first place.

I suspect there would be a decent correlation between people in this thread trying to find a glimmer in what Daniel posts and people who start ramping excitedly come winter i.e. there's a string emotional desire to see snow and therefore you want to believe any article you read that promises the same, and to disbelieve the nay sayers. It's basic psychology.

Re your lottery, and choice of words. Yes, it's potential, but only in so much as p>0. On a scale of 0<=p<=1, the p in your case, for a single purchase, is around 18,000,000:1. I'd have to check the numbers but it puts it in the ball park with the ods of dying in a plane crash - so long and against as to really not be worth thinking about at all as an outcome.

Your physics teacher is actually incorrect, if not necessarily wrong. Taking a forward view of time, and assuming that it is infinite, then it is fairly easy to prove that anything and everything will happen, because infinity x zero = 1. Therefore, over an infiinite period, even things with a probability = 0 become certain. Isn't that bizarre? Gosh, even Daniel's Ice Age might be along "soon" based on that timescale.

[Essan]

If one accepts the Ruddiman Hypothesis the next ice age started 8,000 years ago ....... Human activity has not only cancelled it out, but meant the planet is warming instead of cooling as it should be.

Unless one entirely disputes all GW predictions, then any future cooling trend would need to be severe indeed if it's to do more than maintain temps at current levels. After all, what good is a THC shutdown leading to a 3c avergae drop in UK temps if they're already 3c higher because of AGW? All it would mean would be the sort climate we had during the first part of the 20th century. Which I seem to recall was rather warm and sunny ....

[Stratos Ferric]

If one accepts the Ruddiman Hypothesis the next ice age started 8,000 years ago ....... Human activity has not only cancelled it out, but meant the planet is warming instead of cooling as it should be.

Unless one entirely disputes all GW predictions, then any future cooling trend would need to be severe indeed if it's to do more than maintain temps at current levels. After all, what good is a THC shutdown leading to a 3c avergae drop in UK temps if they're already 3c higher because of AGW? All it would mean would be the sort climate we had during the first part of the 20th century. Which I seem to recall was rather warm and sunny ....

Exactly!

[Guest Mike W]

Well if we went back to the part of the 20th century, would that mean getting a winter like 1916/17. And if you mean the first 50 years by 'first part' of the 20th century then you could put the winters of 1939/40, 40/41, 41/42 and 46/47 in their along with 1928/29, also compared to recent years the winter of 1918/19 looks pretty impressive aswell. Also more to the point the annual CET's come out noticeably lower than nowere days really, 8.** and 9.** with only the odd 10.** once every 10 or 12 years or longer instead of now where we have had 4 10.** in a row and this year could make it the 5th in a row. So I would doubt a climate of the first part of the 20th century would be termed warm and sunny, more like mixed would be a better way of putting it. But still noticeably cooler than nowadays.

Edited August 29, 2006 by Mike W

[parmenides3]

[John Cox]

Mike W,

Brilliant,

Best post of the month.

[tugmistress]

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=31149

This is what he is talking about, the Gliessburg Minima which is an entirely plausable theory however i would suggest that everybody read this thread and that the moderators merge the two threads together, it has over 140 replies, so it should answer most questions.

ok i just confused the hek out of everybody, hopefully i have got this request to merge right

[parmenides3]

Can you merge all Daniel's future strands into here as well, so all the nonsense is one one page?

P

[Stratos Ferric]

Can you merge all Daniel's future strands into here as well, so all the nonsense is one one page?

P

Better still, just limit him to a single thread titled "Daniel's cut and paste from IceAgeNow regarding today's projection of how soon the next ice age will be along". It would be the N-W equivalent of a curfew; we'd all know where he is, if he happens to be about, and those who can't wait for his next shot at wisdom won't have to go trawling through all the other threads trying to find him. Sounds like a classic win-win to me.

[parmenides3]

Better still, just limit him to a single thread titled "Daniel's cut and paste from IceAgeNow regarding today's projection of how soon the next ice age will be along". It would be the N-W equivalent of a curfew; we'd all know where he is, if he happens to be about, and those who can't wait for his next shot at wisdom won't have to go trawling through all the other threads trying to find him. Sounds like a classic win-win to me.

[John Cox]

Daniel,

I am a fan of yours. Keep up the good work

[The Penguin]

If one accepts the Ruddiman Hypothesis the next ice age started 8,000 years ago ....... :unsure: Human activity has not only cancelled it out, but meant the planet is warming instead of cooling as it should be.

Unless one entirely disputes all GW predictions, then any future cooling trend would need to be severe indeed if it's to do more than maintain temps at current levels. After all, what good is a THC shutdown leading to a 3c avergae drop in UK temps if they're already 3c higher because of AGW? All it would mean would be the sort climate we had during the first part of the 20th century. Which I seem to recall was rather warm and sunny ....

Exactly!

Not quite exactly. If I read Ruddiman correctly he ascribes 0.8C to the combined warming influence. If the cooling effect of a THC shutdown is 3.0C then that is not a balanced outcome.

[Essan]

Not quite exactly. If I read Ruddiman correctly he ascribes 0.8C to the combined warming influence. If the cooling effect of a THC shutdown is 3.0C then that is not a balanced outcome.

If it were to happen today, and assuming UK temps perfectly match the global average, then yes. But we're talking about a future shut-down. And estimates currently tend towards a further 1-2c average global rise over the rest of this century (and in some cases by mid century). So if we add that in, we're pretty well balanced :unsure:

[Stratos Ferric]

Daniel,

I am a fan of yours. Keep up the good work

Jon, I'm a huge fan, not least because of the diversity of humankind that he evidences. Being a fan does not, however, mean I don't think that everything he says is somewhere between not really believable at all and several universes beyond the bounds of credibility. But hey, that's democracy.

[Guest Viking141]

However, he does, like it or not, have a point of sorts. Not an Ice Age but certainly the approach of, as summer blizzard, has pointed out, the Gleissberg Minima. And whats more we shall all find out in the next few years. Major cold ahead folks and in our lifetime.

Global Warming is not the only game in town, as much as some people would like it to be. There are some on here who are as much a "stuck record" about GW as Daniel is about his "Ice Age Cometh." It doesnt matter what part of the spectrum you come from a blinkered view is a blinkered view. I fully accept that GW is a fact and that humans are playing a role in that. What I do not accept is that there are not other things which could come along and undo all that - for example a 70-odd year spell of severe cold a la Maunder Minimum which could be just around the corner.

[parmenides3]

However, he does, like it or not, have a point of sorts. Not an Ice Age but certainly the approach of, as summer blizzard, has pointed out, the Gleissberg Minima. And whats more we shall all find out in the next few years. Major cold ahead folks and in our lifetime.

Global Warming is not the only game in town, as much as some people would like it to be. There are some on here who are as much a "stuck record" about GW as Daniel is about his "Ice Age Cometh." It doesnt matter what part of the spectrum you come from a blinkered view is a blinkered view. I fully accept that GW is a fact and that humans are playing a role in that. What I do not accept is that there are not other things which could come along and undo all that - for example a 70-odd year spell of severe cold a la Maunder Minimum which could be just around the corner.

I suppose it is unfair to criticise Daniel. I'll try to avoid it.

Okay, Viking, here is your challenge: provide us with some evidence that this hypothesis is believable. Expect no quarter.

:unsure: P

[Thundery wintry showers]

I'm not Viking, but I will say that the atmosphere is a chaotic system and that there are all kinds of things that could possibly sway the balance towards cooling. Humans still have a lot to learn about atmosphere and climate.

The evidence strongly points towards continued warming, but we can only predict the future, not foretell it. So the most we can say is that the warming is likely to continue.