Heliosphere losing strength, Global warming is BS? The dawn of a new Ice Age?

[lusonico]

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn122/lusonico/SolarWindOverview.jpghttp://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn122/lusonico/SOLARHOSTRIP.jpg
Global warming alarmists face yet another challenge to their predictions of an inferno of doom. The solar wind (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23sep_solarwind.htm?list1010788) is losing power, and is at a fifty year low, according to NASA.

The Ulysses solar probe reports a 13% drop in temperature, a 20% drop in density, and a 30% drop-off in the sun’s magnetic field, marking this as the weakest period of solar wind on record (records go back to the 1960’s).

What does this mean? The Heliosphere is thinning, and thus will block fewer cosmic rays. Heinrick Svensmark theorizes that an increase in cosmic rays reaching the Earth will drive cloud formation, increase the planet’s albedo (reflectivity), thus cooling it.
http://www.myweatherlive.com/weatherblog/1433/Solar-Winds-Cooling-Warmist-Doomsaying- (http://www.myweatherlive.com/weatherblog/1433/Solar-Winds-Cooling-Warmist-Doomsaying-)

Audio interview with Dr. Phil Chapman.
http://vladtepesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/phil_chapman_apr29.mp3
http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=113


Here is the latest twist in the bizarre story about the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) (http://desmogblog.com/a-desmogblog-exclusive-investigation-into-nasas-dscovr-climate-station). Apparently, the US Air Force is in discussions with NASA to take over the mission, with one important catch: that all the Earth observing instruments be removed.

...Strangely, this fully completed spacecraft remains in a box somewhere in Maryland, eight years and $100 million after it was built.

...Assuming that there are senior scientists within NASA that are threatened (http://desmogblog.com/dscovring-the-earths-albedo) by the novel methodology of the DSCOVR experiment, or well placed oil interests that want to keep the so-called climate debate (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/124642_warming02.html) going, this legally mandated deadline presents a problem. What to do?
http://desmogblog.com/dscovr-mission-to-be-gutted (http://desmogblog.com/dscovr-mission-to-be-gutted)

Huge article with lots of insight on the subject.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

[Face]

so now instead of roasting alive, we're gonna freeze to death

cool

[Nature's Folly]

I much rather be an ice cube than fried.

[Face]

fuck yeah, when it's cold out you can bundle up and light a fire, when it's so fucking hot that you're on fire, it's somewhat harder to cool off

[UNC]

Where are all the "Global Warming nutjobs" at? I want to say I told them so.

[fuldstændigamok]

Where are all the "Global Warming nutjobs" at? I want to say I told them so.

I'm waiting for Obama to be pres before making any decisions. Fo' shure now, global warming is BS, what with the assholes in the white house? Let's wait and see how all of this will change 3 months from now.

[Yelram]

fuck yeah, when it's cold out you can bundle up and light a fire, when it's so fucking hot that you're on fire, it's somewhat harder to cool off

Yeah but we could gain several degrees and still have agriculture, but losing just a few will completely eradicate the farming industry, and it will be a question of starving to death, or water levels rising a bit.

[Bizz]

Yeah but we could gain several degrees and still have agriculture, but losing just a few will completely eradicate the farming industry, and it will be a question of starving to death, or water levels rising a bit.

Fuck vegetables. Meat will live on in the cold.

[kid_vidrio]

Fuck vegetables. Meat will live on in the cold. Hey Einstein, what do you think that eat eats before you eat it?

[kid_vidrio]

Where are all the "Global Warming nutjobs" at? I want to say I told them so.
You've got your meat and your cheese mixed there buddy, and it's not entirely your fault.
The aspects of humanity that have indisputably contributed to a condition that can increase atmospheric temperatures should be corrected. A couple of these include the over-production and consumption of beef and fossil fuels.
One way to demonstrate this conspicuous abuse of resources was to point at the increased carbon levels. The risk was that other natural occurring phenomenon or the result of the displacement of carbon that can't be accurately determined/predicted without experiencing it (irreversible ecosystem destruction, erosion, etc) and it is while people argue over what the term 'global warming' actually means.
So, say 'I told you so' and slam a few beers and dance around in glee. Yay you. To be honest, I hope the global warming/environmental devastation alarmists are dead wrong, cuz I'd just as soon think my kid's kid's kids were going to have a shot at seeing much of the earth that I've seen, but science suggests otherwise.

[UNC]

*half of science suggests otherwise.

I guess it all comes down to who/what you choose to believe.

[Stax]

*half of science suggests otherwise.

I guess it all comes down to who/what you choose to believe.

No, it doesn't. This mystical massive scientific schism does not exist, it is a radical minority of people who disagree.

[kid_vidrio]

*half of science suggests otherwise.

I guess it all comes down to who/what you choose to believe.
I'm talking about disappearing ecosystems and species, not the cause of it. So yes, half of science (under this administrations counting methods) are in accord as to the cause, but empirical evidence supports ecological devastation. Frogs and bees and lions and fire flies and all the shit that depends on them. You can't put humpty dumpty together again.

[Claydon]

Global Cooling!?

The French have a military?!

Arch reads Daniel Steele!?

STOP THE MADNESS!

[Kerjack]

SUV sales will rise again!

[Bizz]

Hey Einstein, what do you think that eat eats before you eat it?

Hydroponic lettuce and hippie vegetarians.

[freegood]

I'm talking about disappearing ecosystems and species, not the cause of it. So yes, half of science (under this administrations counting methods) are in accord as to the cause, but empirical evidence supports ecological devastation. Frogs and bees and lions and fire flies and all the shit that depends on them. You can't put humpty dumpty together again.

It would've been better not to prop up global warming as the rallying cry for this issue...

[taters]

Global warming does not equate to everywhere getting warmer. In fact (anyone whos read up on it, or even seen the massively popular 'inconvenient truth'), it was always the end hypothesis of global warming that it would LEAD to a micro ice age if kept unchecked at a random point in the future.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/nov/13/comment.research
If you can remember back to the bitter winters of the late 1970s and early 80s you might also recall that there was much discussion in scientific circles at the time about whether or not the freezing winter conditions were a portent of a new ice age.

Over the past couple of decades such warnings have been drowned out by the great global warming debate and by consideration of how society might cope in future with a sweltering planet rather than an icebound one. Seemingly, the fact that we are still within an interglacial period, during which the ice has largely retreated to its polar fastnesses, has been forgotten - and replaced with the commonly-held view that one good thing you can say about global warming is that it will at least stave off the return of the glaciers.

Is this really true, or could the rapidly accelerating warming that we are experiencing actually hasten the onset of a new ice age? A growing body of evidence suggests that, at least for the UK and western Europe, there is a serious risk of this happening - and soon.

The problem lies with the ocean current known as the Gulf Stream, which bathes the UK and north-west Europe in warm water carried northwards from the Caribbean. It is the Gulf Stream, and associated currents, that allow strawberries to thrive along the Norwegian coast, while at comparable latitudes in Greenland glaciers wind their way right down to sea level. The same currents permit palms to flourish in Cornwall and the Hebrides, whereas across the ocean in Labrador, even temperate vegetation struggles to survive. Without the Gulf Stream, temperatures in the UK and north-west Europe would be five degrees centigrade or so cooler, with bitter winters at least as fierce as those of the so-called Little Ice Age in the 17th to 19th centuries.

The Gulf Stream is part of a more complex system of currents known by a number of different names, of which the rather cumbersome North Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (Namoc) is probably the most apt. This incorporates not only the Gulf Stream but also the cold return currents that convey water southwards again. As it approaches the Arctic, the Gulf Stream loses heat and part of it heads back to warmer climes along the coast of Greenland and eastern Canada in the form of the cold, iceberg-laden current responsible for the loss of the Titanic. Much, however, overturns - cooling and sinking beneath the Nordic seas between Norway and Greenland, before heading south again deep below the surface.

In the past, the slowing of the Gulf Stream has been intimately linked with dramatic regional cooling. Just 10,000 years ago, during a climatic cold snap known as the Younger Dryas, the current was severely weakened, causing northern European temperatures to fall by as much as 10 degrees. Ten thousand years before that, at the height of the last ice age, when most of the UK was reduced to a frozen wasteland, the Gulf Stream had just two-thirds of the strength it has now.

What's worrying is that for some years now, global climate models have been predicting a future weakening of the Gulf Stream as a consequence of global warming. Such models visualise the disruption of the Namoc, including the Gulf Stream, as a result of large-scale melting of Arctic ice and the consequent pouring of huge volumes of fresh water into the North Atlantic, in a century or two. New data suggest, however, that we may not have to wait centuries, and in fact the whole process may be happening already.

So that the warm, saline surface waters of the Gulf Stream can continue to push northwards, there must be a comparable, deep return current of cold, dense water from the Nordic seas. Disturbingly, this return current seems to have been slowing since the middle of the last century. Bogi Hansen at the Faroese fisheries laboratory, and colleagues in Scotland and Norway, have been monitoring the deep outflow of cold water from the Nordic seas as it passes over the submarine Greenland-Scotland ridge that straddles the North Atlantic at this point. Their results show that the outflow has fallen by 20% since 1950, which suggests a comparable reduced inflow from the Gulf Stream.

Although there is as yet no direct substantiation of this, and his colleagues point to reports of the cooling and freshening of the Norwegian Sea and to temperatures that are already falling in parts of the region as possible evidence of contemporary Gulf Stream weakening.

It also seems that it is not only the intensity of the outflow of cold water that is changing. Bob Dickson of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Science at Lowestoft, and colleagues, have reported a sustained and widespread freshening of returning deep waters south of the Greenland-Scotland ridge, which appears to have been going on for the past three or four decades.

Already the freshening is extending along the North American eastern seaboard towards the equator, in the so-called Deep Western Boundary current.

One of the scariest aspects of the current dramatic changes occurring in the system of North Atlantic currents is that the deep, southward-flowing limb of the Namoc can be thought of as representing the headwaters of the worldwide system of ocean currents known as the Global Thermohaline Circulation. The possibility exists, therefore, that a disruption of the Atlantic currents might have implications far beyond a colder UK and north-west Europe, perhaps bringing dramatic climatic changes to the entire planet.

Yet again, this highlights the fact that global warming, for which we have only ourselves to thank, is nothing more nor less than a great planetary experiment, many of the outcomes of which we cannot predict. Wallace Broecker, an ocean circulation researcher at New York's Lamont-Doherty Earth observatory, described the situation perfectly when he pointed out that "climate is an angry beast and we are poking at it with sticks". Let's hope that when it truly turns on us, its teeth don't match its outrage.

· Bill McGuire is Benfield Professor of Geophysical Hazards and director of the Benfield Hazard Research Centre at University College London. He will appear on BBC2 Horizon's The Big Chill tonight


The only error seems to be the thought that we hadnt warmed the planet enough to cause this mini ice age.

[Kerjack]

So you are saying our CO2 production caused the sun to produce weaker solar winds....

Huh.

[taters]

So you are saying our CO2 production caused the sun to produce weaker solar winds....

Huh.

No. Im saying (in short) that the 'global warming' scientific community had long since said that global warming would lead to a mini or prolonged ice age. Am I the only person who read/saw An Inconvenient Truth?

In short

The oceans have a tidal gulf stream that cycles warm water with cold water, circling the planet. In north atlantic, there is a convergence zone where the cold water warms to become hot. Water is the primary control of our atmosphere tempature (Remember that from HS and freshman physics, as well as basic thermodynamics *a section of physics, I never took the whole class*)

Anyway, the increased 'warming' of the atmosphere caused by man (pollutants, chemicals put into air) causes ice from the poles to slowly melt. You all have probably already heard that in like 5-20 years at the current rate, barring an ice age the north pole ice cap will dissappear in the summers.

Getting back, ice from the north pole, particularly greenland, melts (but not enough to warm, only to liquify) into the north atlantic, warming up the waters at the convergence point. Since that water now does not get as warm, it cycles slower, and causes a cooling effect on the atmosphere (cool oceans = Freezing atmosphere...liquid denser than gas, has stronger thermal effect on gas (our atmosphere, which is gas based). Hence = warming globe eventually leads to colder earth, at a rapid rate.


It seems strange, but most science is. To a person who did not know, tossing water on a, oil fire should put it out, but it doesnt. Warming globe will lead to colder globe, by unnatural and rapid means.

[Kerjack]

I'm not even going to bother reading all that because you clearly fail to see my point. This thread is about the sun, and the effect its current state is going to have on the earth and weather conditions.

In other words, what you say may be true but that has nothing to do with THIS topic.

[taters]

I guess what I was saying is that I dont buy this solar cause claim, but I do believe there is potentially another ice age coming (as does most of the global warming accepted community). It has nothing to do with solar winds, only thermodynamics and the warming effect of the atmosphere on the poles/oceans.

All the other bogus claims are just that. It seems like another way to snake out of responsibility.

[Kerjack]

I believe saying it 100% has nothing to do with anything except our own actions is just as radical as saying anything else.

[Limp]

Your face is radical...

[Kerjack]

Now if only I was a rat I might know kung-fu.

[Limp]

Your face is kung-fuy.

[Kerjack]

Touche'