Little ice age in 2030

[micole66]

It's coming a little ice age in 2030?

[Terminal Moraine]

 Welcome to the forum micole66.

I'm not sure whether you're asking a question or stating a fact. Do you have some evidence for the forthcoming little ice age or did you forget to add a link to your post?

[micole66]

41 minutes ago, Terminal Moraine said:

 Welcome to the forum micole66.

I'm not sure whether you're asking a question or stating a fact. Do you have some evidence for the forthcoming little ice age or did you forget to add a link to your post?

This is a link about little ice age, it's true or fake? http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming/

[weirpig]

11 minutes ago, micole66 said:

This is a link about little ice age, it's true or fake? http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming/

I don't think it's fake. Their as been a lot of speculation regarding the sun and the temps we experience  this solar max as been very low so the minimum could be extremely low. Whether that will be enough to create very low temps remains to be seen. Some papers also say that the current rate in which the earth is warming may offset any potential cool down.  Interesting period coming up. Add to that the low ice in the artic which may cool the waters due to ice melting which in turn may slow the Atlantic conveyor belt  there is a lot to keep our eyes on over the next few years 

[micole66]

1 minute ago, weirpig said:

I don't think it's fake. Their as been a lot of speculation regarding the sun and the temps we experience  this solar max as been very low so the minimum could be extremely low. Whether that will be enough to create very low temps remains to be seen. Some papers also say that the current rate in which the earth is warming may offset any potential cool down.  Interesting period coming up. Add to that the low ice in the artic which may cool the waters due to ice melting which in turn may slow the Atlantic conveyor belt  there is a lot to keep our eyes on over the next few years 

Ok thanks

[micole66]

What is more true now? Global warming or global cooling?

[Gray-Wolf]

Even if our outputs ended today we would face decades of future warming from the forcings already in the pipeline. Don't forget half of our potential warming is being offset by the flip side of our pollution.

If we do see a reduction in the overturning current it will not be felt globally, just our area ( like our lousy summers since the 07' Arctic crash?) with other regions continuing to warm rapidly.

Tell me, where does the IPCC 'Business as usual' scenario place us in 2030? How are we , planet Earth, doing on that plan as , when last I looked, CO2 forcings seemed well ahead of the B.A.U. trajectory?

And how is the Arctic doing compared to where we thought it would be back in the year 2000? And what of the permafrost regions ( You know 'Yamal' an' all that?)? are they keeping to script or do we keep seeing extreme 'burps' of CH4 over the Arctic Basin?

I think it safer to look at AGW as the 'blue touch paper' and Mother Nature as the driver of change on the planet? When She decides we have to move up to the next 'stable' climate setting nothing will stop her!

Try and not be fooled by folk who see a way of never having to admit their denialism caused our planet , and populations, problems by forestalling meaningful mitigation throughout the noughties!

[BornFromTheVoid]

Lower solar activity does seem to promote more of a -ve NAO type pattern, as we saw in the winters during the recent solar minimum. So it may increase the chances of colder and snowier winter weather around here. Back during the actual "Little Ice-age", global temperatures were generally about 1C cooler, and the Arctic had much more ice and was 4-5C colder during winter. So even if we saw the same weather patterns that brought the bitter winters of the LIA, they wouldn't be able to bring the same depth of cold today.

As for global warming or cooling, there is no evidence to suggest that it will reverse the global warming trend. Even during the last minimum, which was the longest/quietest in a century, global temperatures and accumulated heat continued unabated. 

Here are a few studies that looked at how a grand solar minimum might effect global temperatures during the 21st century.

On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth

What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?

Could a future “Grand Solar Minimum” like the 6 Maunder Minimum stop global warming?

[Devonian]

46 minutes ago, micole66 said:

What is more true now? Global warming or global cooling?

A little out of date, but this. 2016 is almost certain to be warmer than 2015.

[micole66]

2 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Lower solar activity does seem to promote more of a -ve NAO type pattern, as we saw in the winters during the recent solar minimum. So it may increase the chances of colder and snowier winter weather around here. Back during the actual "Little Ice-age", global temperatures were generally about 1C cooler, and the Arctic had much more ice and was 4-5C colder during winter. So even if we saw the same weather patterns that brought the bitter winters of the LIA, they wouldn't be able to bring the same depth of cold today.

As for global warming or cooling, there is no evidence to suggest that it will reverse the global warming trend. Even during the last minimum, which was the longest/quietest in a century, global temperatures and accumulated heat continued unabated. 

Here are a few studies that looked at how a grand solar minimum might effect global temperatures during the 21st century.

On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth

What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?

Could a future “Grand Solar Minimum” like the 6 Maunder Minimum stop global warming?

It's true!!!

[knocker]

It should perhaps be remembered that the Zharkova 'paper' wasn't, merely a presentation and it came in for a lot of peer reviewed criticism at the time.A recent paper which I don't think has already been mentioned.

Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html

[Gael_Force]

11 minutes ago, knocker said:

It should perhaps be remembered that the Zharkova 'paper' wasn't, merely a presentation and it came in for a lot of peer reviewed criticism at the time.A recent paper which I don't think has already been mentioned.

Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html

The Zharkova paper has been published now but it is getting a lot of criticism from some in the field.

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689

 

[CreweCold]

The sun, for me, will always be viewed as THE driver of global temperatures (from a holistic viewpoint). Tell me, what would happen if the sun was to suddenly disappear?? No amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would come to our rescue in that instance; we'd freeze solid within seconds.

It's why I find it embarrassing that some people seem to hold its effects in such little regard.

As of 2009 the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 387 ppm, to put this into context, during the paleozoic era, it's estimated the concentration was about 4400 ppm. Yet there is evidence to suggest that there was still glaciation at this time.

IMO it's much more plausible that the radiation output of the sun is not constant (as is assumed) and what we're seeing is a response to fluctuations in its output. The sun is in its late mature stage and will only increase its output over the next millions of years. Even minute fluctuations will result in temperature swings on earth.

Given we have fairly rudimentary knowledge of the intricate workings of the sun, I cannot see how it is wise to discount it as a major driver whatsoever- and I'm not just talking about sun spots here. 

Regardless of any 'seemingly obvious correlations' it could be completely coincidental that we've seen warming since the onset of industrialisation. That's a fact that cannot be disproved. 

As someone said above, it's going to be a very interesting few years ahead. So much to keep tabs on; solar cycles, Arctic ice extent, Global temperatures, NW European climate etc etc. 

Edited August 31, 2016 by CreweCold

[Frost HoIIow]

43 minutes ago, CreweCold said:

The sun, for me, will always be viewed as THE driver of global temperatures (from a holistic viewpoint). Tell me, what would happen if the sun was to suddenly disappear?? No amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would come to our rescue in that instance; we'd freeze solid within seconds.

It's why I find it embarrassing that some people seem to hold its effects in such little regard.

As of 2009 the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 387 ppm, to put this into context, during the paleozoic era, it's estimated the concentration was about 4400 ppm. Yet there is evidence to suggest that there was still glaciation at this time.

IMO it's much more plausible that the radiation output of the sun is not constant (as is assumed) and what we're seeing is a response to fluctuations in its output. The sun is in its late mature stage and will only increase its output over the next millions of years. Even minute fluctuations will result in temperature swings on earth.

Given we have fairly rudimentary knowledge of the intricate workings of the sun, I cannot see how it is wise to discount it as a major driver whatsoever- and I'm not just talking about sun spots here. 

Regardless of any 'seemingly obvious correlations' it could be completely coincidental that we've seen warming since the onset of industrialisation. That's a fact that cannot be disproved. 

Ah well by then humans will have ventured into the great unknown & likely left Earth behind, a new generation of coldies will have found solace on a cold snowy planet 

Edited August 31, 2016 by Frost HoIIow

[CreweCold]

3 minutes ago, Frost HoIIow said:

Ah well by then humans will have ventured into the great unknown & likely left Earth behind, a new generation of coldies will have found solace on a cold snowy planet 

Well that's good because Earth will eventually be cremated by the sun!

[cheese]

14 minutes ago, CreweCold said:

Well that's good because Earth will eventually be cremated by the sun!

I'm willing to bet humans won't even be around by that point! Or maybe I'm just a pessimist, lol. 

Edited August 31, 2016 by cheese

[BornFromTheVoid]

9 hours ago, CreweCold said:

The sun, for me, will always be viewed as THE driver of global temperatures (from a holistic viewpoint). Tell me, what would happen if the sun was to suddenly disappear?? No amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would come to our rescue in that instance; we'd freeze solid within seconds.

In a similar vein, take CO2 out of the atmosphere and the Earth becomes a giant ball of ice too.

9 hours ago, CreweCold said:

As of 2009 the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 387 ppm, to put this into context, during the paleozoic era, it's estimated the concentration was about 4400 ppm. Yet there is evidence to suggest that there was still glaciation at this time.

IMO it's much more plausible that the radiation output of the sun is not constant (as is assumed) and what we're seeing is a response to fluctuations in its output. The sun is in its late mature stage and will only increase its output over the next millions of years. Even minute fluctuations will result in temperature swings on earth.

This is part of the faint young sun paradox. High CO2 levels, much less output from the sun = a cooler climate. Similarly, in hundreds of millions of year, much less CO2 will be needed to keep the Earth ice free. Greenhouse gasses have done a remarkable job of keeping the Earth in a stable enough temperature range to keep life going for hundreds of millions of years, despite the long term increase in solar output and other climate cataclysms.

9 hours ago, CreweCold said:

Given we have fairly rudimentary knowledge of the intricate workings of the sun, I cannot see how it is wise to discount it as a major driver whatsoever- and I'm not just talking about sun spots here. 

Regardless of any 'seemingly obvious correlations' it could be completely coincidental that we've seen warming since the onset of industrialisation. That's a fact that cannot be disproved. 

I don't think anyone discounts the effect of the sun, no more than the tilt of the Earth or the role of ocean currents. However, the influences are relative, related and measurable. We know the importance of the Milankovitch cycles in conjunction with GhGs in driving much of the recent glacial cycles and it would be unwise to discount the strong correlation between recent grand minima and changes in the north Atlantic weather patterns.

However, warming since the industrial revolution is largely explained by CO2 (especially after mid 20th century, as explained not so long ago, using a large variety of empirical lines of evidence (as well as correlations and climate models). As far as can be scientifically certain, it is definitely not simply a correlation.

[iapennell]

On 9/1/2016 at 00:24, cheese said:

I'm willing to bet humans won't even be around by that point! Or maybe I'm just a pessimist, lol. 

And only if the Good Lord delays!!!

[Midlands Ice Age]

On 8/31/2016 at 23:23, CreweCold said:

The sun, for me, will always be viewed as THE driver of global temperatures (from a holistic viewpoint). Tell me, what would happen if the sun was to suddenly disappear?? No amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would come to our rescue in that instance; we'd freeze solid within seconds.

It's why I find it embarrassing that some people seem to hold its effects in such little regard.

As of 2009 the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 387 ppm, to put this into context, during the paleozoic era, it's estimated the concentration was about 4400 ppm. Yet there is evidence to suggest that there was still glaciation at this time.

IMO it's much more plausible that the radiation output of the sun is not constant (as is assumed) and what we're seeing is a response to fluctuations in its output. The sun is in its late mature stage and will only increase its output over the next millions of years. Even minute fluctuations will result in temperature swings on earth.

Given we have fairly rudimentary knowledge of the intricate workings of the sun, I cannot see how it is wise to discount it as a major driver whatsoever- and I'm not just talking about sun spots here. 

Regardless of any 'seemingly obvious correlations' it could be completely coincidental that we've seen warming since the onset of industrialisation. That's a fact that cannot be disproved. 

As someone said above, it's going to be a very interesting few years ahead. So much to keep tabs on; solar cycles, Arctic ice extent, Global temperatures, NW European climate etc etc. 

CC..

I find I agree with much of this!

I read the references  by BFTV, and they do reflect a virtually state of radiation output from the sun.  They were published in 2010, 2012 and 2013. Already we have seen this challenged by recent measurements in the higher energy spectrum ranges  now being measured. The most recently published on here showed a difference of 12% in one year in the last 18 months (in central California), at the higher energy end of the spectrum. People are now investigating the effects that this will have on the stratosphere. People have suggested that the total effect may be as high as 40%.

In addition with the models available in 2010 being adjusted to handle the pause they are not the ideal models to be using for a comparison..

The average of the models is still unsound for the future. Otherwise why do they predict some where between 1.8 and 6.5C change of temperatures?

It is still miles (years) too early to be throwing conclusions around.  (IMO) . We may be more certain by the time 2020 comes around,  but I have my doubts. 

MIA

 

 

[knocker]

31 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

It is still miles (years) too early to be throwing conclusions around.  (IMO) . We may be more certain by the time 2020 comes around,  but I have my doubts. 

MIA

 

 

More certain about what exactly?

[Midlands Ice Age]

Just now, knocker said:

More certain about what exactly?

Knocker..

Clearly - whether the inbound high energy has any effects.  Something does seem to cause high level blocking, and how this affects clouds. The IPCC will have had another 4 years to implement and add into their models! Their avoid intent is to enable systematic improvement is it not? 

In 10 years time they may well be adding in the AMO oceanic effect in to their models. That actually could well cause  big changes..

MIA

[knocker]

26 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

In 10 years time they may well be adding in the AMO oceanic effect in to their models. That actually could well cause  big changes..

MIA

Most of that post is waffle unsubstantiated by any scientific evidence that it has having any major effect on global warming or climate change which is down to the rapid dispersion of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by human intervention over the last 150 years.

And what exactly is your understanding of the AMO effect and what big changes could it cause in the models? I ask because this subject has been discussed previously  in this section in the bad old days when unsubstantiated opinions were rife and caused a certain amount of mayhem. The conclusion was/is that ocean cycles do not impact on global warming per se, merely the rate.

Remember this?

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/amo/

I've noticed a distinct tendency of late of the return of the old days which can be illustrated quite easily with a one line quote from your initial post.

Quote

In addition with the models available in 2010 being adjusted to handle the pause they are not the ideal models to be using for a comparison..

 

Edited September 19, 2016 by knocker

[iapennell]

This article points out that a Grand Solar Minimum could knock 0.8C off a projected rise in mean winter temperatures over Europe of 6.4C under a business -as -usual scenario for global CO2 emissions by the end of the century :See here:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-minimum-could-bring-cold-winters-to-europe-and-us-but-would-not-hold-off-climate-change

Put like that, it would seem that the coming Grand Solar Minimum would be little cause for concern. However, if this Grand Solar Minimum sets in proper within the next decade, before CO2 levels have increased to the point that the extra greenhouse gases have as much extra warming effect as the up to 0.5% lower mean Solar Constant then we can expect a period of colder winters. This is especially true if the Sun's radiation drops most in the shorter wavelengths that are needed to strengthen the atmospheric lapse rates, and we end up with weaker depressions in high latitudes and more high-latitude blocking-highs. 

Other unexpected climatic interventions are likely to be cooling ones, a sudden slow-down in AMO and a big volcanic eruption putting dust into the stratosphere, for instance, occurring during this interim of 2020 to 2030 is likely to lead to a few years with really cold conditions over NW Europe and not just in winter. 

[knocker]

4 hours ago, iapennell said:

This article points out that a Grand Solar Minimum could knock 0.8C off a projected rise in mean winter temperatures over Europe of 6.4C under a business -as -usual scenario for global CO2 emissions by the end of the century :See here:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-minimum-could-bring-cold-winters-to-europe-and-us-but-would-not-hold-off-climate-change

Put like that, it would seem that the coming Grand Solar Minimum would be little cause for concern. However, if this Grand Solar Minimum sets in proper within the next decade, before CO2 levels have increased to the point that the extra greenhouse gases have as much extra warming effect as the up to 0.5% lower mean Solar Constant then we can expect a period of colder winters. This is especially true if the Sun's radiation drops most in the shorter wavelengths that are needed to strengthen the atmospheric lapse rates, and we end up with weaker depressions in high latitudes and more high-latitude blocking-highs. 

Other unexpected climatic interventions are likely to be cooling ones, a sudden slow-down in AMO and a big volcanic eruption putting dust into the stratosphere, for instance, occurring during this interim of 2020 to 2030 is likely to lead to a few years with really cold conditions over NW Europe and not just in winter. 

I think you will find Gael_Force has already posted a link to that paper. If you want a recent study on "The Spectral Signature of Recent Climate Change" with a number of recommended links to other recent papers then this is very useful.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40641-016-0039-5

But none of this is relevant to impending ice ages which is a load of nonsense.

[Gray-Wolf]

Throughout the noughties I had been warning that the combination of natural cycles and human pollution would not be a permanent fixture and that eventually the pollution would lessen and the cycles would show their opposing sign. It appears that we are now entering this period with IPO/PDO flipped positive and China trying her hardest to reign in its particulate/sulphate pollution.

Past combinations of dimming and negative natural cycles had seen global temps fall below the 'average' whereas this time around global temps merely 'slowed' in their rates of warming? Surely this served as a warning bell to everyone that come the return of Naturals augmenting warming, combined with reduced dimming due to clean air drives in Asia, we would see a global atmospheric temp regime that was rising faster than we saw in the 80's/90's?

Of course we then saw the Arctic Sea ice collapse of 2007 effectively putting a new dollop of energy into the climate system ( energy that used to never make it into the system due to it being reflected back into space?) we should have known that this would force global temps further?

The 'drops' in solar ,driven by a Maunder type minimum, would be massively swamped by the reduction in dimming and the opening up of the Arctic ocean. The losses of AGW forcings to 'dimming' were Given ,by NASA, to be around 50% of the potential warming current GHG forcings could drive. A combination of enhanced warming (due to more energy reaching the surface) and the opening up of more surface to warming ( due to melt out of snow/ice) will swamp any minor drop in solar forcing surely?