The sun may be entering a period of reduced activity that could result in lower temperatures on Earth, according to Japanese researchers. Officials of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan and the Riken research foundation said on April 19 that the activity of sunspots appeared to resemble a 70-year period in the 17th century in which London’s Thames froze over and cherry blossoms bloomed later than usual in Kyoto. In that era, known as the Maunder Minimum, temperatures are estimated to have been about 2.5 degrees lower than in the second half of the 20th century.
[…]
If that trend continues, the north pole could complete its flip in May 2012 but create a four-pole magnetic structure in the sun, with two new poles created in the vicinity of the equator of our closest star.
Bobbo, you might think about trying to read something other than some alarmist websites, to get some more detail. Everything you said about ocean acidification is wrong.
A better term would be ocean neutralization as the ocean is slightly basic, and would stay that way.
Plus, the food you eat is mostly acidic.
And, the variation in ocean PH year to year is greater than the changes being predicted by global warming, as it the month to month changes, and even daily changes.
NewfornatSux says:
5/2/2012 at 7:11 am
Bobbo, you might think about trying to read something other than some alarmist websites, to get some more detail. /// Haven’t been reading websites. Long extended conversation with Misanthropic Scot at the CageMatch. If I sense a website is “almarist” I look elsewhere. Is wiki alarmist? NASA? IPCC? I guess so if you are determined to keep your head in the sand.
Everything you said about ocean acidification is wrong. /// It was? Where does most of the co2 go then?/// The ocean isn’t acidifying interfering with the life cycle of corals and other calcifiers? Well–facts is facts. They are either right or wrong. How come you rarely link to anything and when you do, its worst than not linking at all?
A better term would be ocean neutralization as the ocean is slightly basic, and would stay that way. /// My goodness. A meaningless quibble that changes nothing? Really stupid. Care to try again and add whatever words are missing at the end of that sentence?
Plus, the food you eat is mostly acidic. /// How is what I eat relevant to how corals form shells?
And, the variation in ocean PH year to year is greater than the changes being predicted by global warming, as it the month to month changes, and even daily changes. /// Again, even if true, how is that relevant to a slow change that ultimately interferes with shell formation in the ocean?
Really NFS–I wish you would do better.
Bobbutt, are we men or mice – You’re a Rat.
When they can farm in Greenland again like the Vikings, I’ll worry about Global Warming. For now it’s just a way to force the Gloabalist Agenda on America via the United Nations.
If you want to bring about a new Dark Age for Mankind, one that won’t ever lift, then go ahead an support the same dips that think a nuclear reactor is in the cooling tower. It won’t really matter, it’s only a matter of time before we’re all speaking either Mexican Spanish or Chinese.
Whatever…………………………………………………………………………………
Traaxx
Well Traxx–there you go again. confusing cancer with cancer fraud.
No. Its not “just about” Algore’s Cap and Trade manipulations.
It is about learning not to shit in our own environment. It is (homage) to Lovelocks point: Mother Gaia.
I predict “the environment” will one day be the new religion. SCIENCE and religion joined at the hip.
“♫…I believe, I do, yes I do, I do, because I believe….”
Not whatever, but “clean the shit out of your eyes and ears and post like you had a brain.”
There ya go……………………………………………………………
bobbo
pumpkins
Just because Global Warming/Climate Change is a fraud, doesn’t mean it’s okay to litter.
So is this man-made solar polarity flipping? And how are we human able to stop it, of fix it? Send all our refrig magnets to the sun?
You can watch the 1979 movie Quintet, on Stagevu.com. But…. why would you want to? Brrrrr!
BTW, I’m starting a top ten list of the coldest movies made. I’m pretty sure “Quintet” is 1st. “Ice Station Zebra” has to be up there somewhere, maybe 3rd or 4th. “The Thing (From Another World)” is probably 2nd. “Lion In Winter”, not sure where it stands. And I know what you’re thinking, but no, Star Wars eps. 5 doesn’t count. The whole movie doesn’t take place on Hoth. I never saw the Japanese movie “Antarctica”. But I assume it’s very cold throughout. I’d love to list “Never Cry Wolf”, but it warms up after the first 30 minutes. Any other titles? Maybe it should be a top five list.
Couple of good ones.
Probably “To Build a Fire” about a guy that freezes to death in Alaska. I think it was based on a Jack London novella. He did a few other books where Alaska/cold was a major character.
I also shivered most mightily at “My Greek Wedding” and “Funny Girl” but thats a different chill.
Last Bastion For Climate Dissenters Crumbling
Layzej writes:
“The New York Times reports: ‘For decades, a small group of scientific dissenters has been trying to shoot holes in the prevailing science of climate change, offering one reason after another why the outlook simply must be wrong.’ Initially they claimed that weather stations exaggerated the warming trend. This was disproven by satellite data which shows a similar warming trend. Next, solar activity was blamed for much of the warming. This looked like a promising theory until the ’80s, when solar output started to diverge from global temperatures. Now, climate contrarians are convinced that changes in cloud cover will largely mitigate the warming caused by increased CO2. The New York Times examines how even this last bastion for dissenters is crumbling. Over the past few years, Several papers have shown that rather than being a mitigating factor, changes in cloud cover due to warming may actually enhance further warming.”
For embedded active links to the data, go to:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/05/02/0430231/last-bastion-for-climate-dissenters-crumbling
All this proves is how F-ed up the New York Times is now. Promoting the politicized science of global warming. And parroting more slander phrases, thought up for them, like climate “contrarians”. Another example of recently invented wordage, to fit the convenient bill of confusing the public.
I suspect that all this crap is leading up to something bigger. Like using this trumped up climate doom to justify rounding people up and doing away with them. Or at the very least, forcing more of them to live in poverty, to save the world. Thus vastly increasing the power and wealth of those few who still have anything. They don’t have to earn more, or make more of anything. Just make the rest of us have a whole lot less, by comparison. And I suspect they’ll be doing this, as well as taxing us heavily, to try and correct the climate change. And maybe toss out the US Constitution, to boot. But hey. We’ll be saving the world. So it’s worth it, right? Slavery? Servitude? Human sacrifices? Contrarian cleaning?
I’ll put you down as: Devo.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/05/nyt-puts-hit-on.html
Regarding cloud cover, it’s an interesting theory or two or three there. So clouds cause warming, or maybe cooling, the scientists aren’t really sure. One type of clouds cause warming, and with global warming, we see more of these clouds, which leads scientists to think it is a positive feedback, thus increasing the natural 1 degree of warming caused by CO2.
Now, the counter theory goes something like this. Imagine an island with populations of wolves and sheep. As wolves eat the sheep, the sheep population declines, and the wolves increase. Then because there is less food, the wolf population declines. With fewer predators, the sheep population increases, and so the cycle goes. It is possible that the time lag is such that you will see wolf and sheep population increase and decrease in phase, leading you to the conclusion that more wolves causes more sheep.
Now one theory is what if a natural change in cloud cover caused the increase is global temperatures, simultaneously with the increase in CO2? Then it means that clouds are not a positive feedback, but rather a coincidence, and global warming is back to the same 1 degree of warming.
Yep—now imagine that every day a ship comes and off loads 10 new wolves every day.
then puzzle me this: how long will the island have sheep?
Totally irrelevant, given the small warming CO2 causes. 1 degree celsius. The point of the analogy is that CO2 is being assigned an amplification of its effect based on a faulty cause and effect analysis.
Looks like you are substituting feeling for science. The impact of CO2 is known and has been for 100 years. Not a big deal. Only by adding mythical feedbacks do the alarmist numbers come into play. It would be like adding 10 wolves a day to a population of 10000000 sheep.
NewfornatSux says:
5/1/2012 at 9:45 pm
>but over all the ice is melting—HENCE THE OCEAN LEVEL KEEPS RISING,
Wrong again. Ocean level rise has nothing to do with melting ice. /// Ice sitting above sea level melts into the ocean has nothing to do with melting ice? I think you could only mean melting ice is not the only factor? ie–its even worse than any alarmist has made clear? But your logic is that 2 + 2 = 2. No effect. Denying math to support your position…….typical.
Global warming would lead to more ice not less. /// I’ll give you “more ice in certain localities”—but even then, not “forever.” I don’t know that detail. When the bearing straits could be walked across, where was the ice? Was there any? I’ve only ever seen the ice sheet retreating up towards the North Pole. Hardly matters. The point is–if water rises to the level that we can again walk from Alaska to China, that will disrupt life in the coastal cities. Or do you disagree with that too? You know: magically.
It is simply too cold in Antarctica for global warming to melt the ice there. Instead, you would get warmer water that evaporates and falls as snow in Antarctica, creating more ice. /// Not interested enough to look it up, I’ll concede the point initially although I think sea rise of 150 feet could greatly reduce the ice coverage in Antarctica causing another round of ocean rise and so forth.
Sea level rises because warmer water expands. /// Where in this exposition is the explanation for how the water gets warmer? Silly anyway. When you add water to a system, there is more water in the system.
Sea level continues to rise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
Ice floating on water, when it melts, does not raise the level of the water. It was this topic discussion that convinced me Mr ConFusion was a total idiot. Hope you don’t go the same way.
There is no 150 foot sea level rise. Science projects less than 10 feet. Current rise is about 2-3 mm a year.
Sea level rise has nothing to do with melting ice because on net there will be more ice not less, globally.
tax on carbon, how do you propose to get the Chinese to do that? How about the other countries that make up the majority of emissions, but are not in Europe, or Japan, or Australia, or South Korea, or Russia? The developing countries are just going to tax carbon to help you sleep better? Hahaha.
What to do is a different issue. Why do anything as in your position adding melted ice water to the ocean doesn’t do anything, adding co2 to the atmosphere doesn’t do anything, adding co2 to the ocean doesn’t do anything…..see a pattern here?
I haven’t discussed solutions at all. Too many confuse not liking a solution with the desire to avoid the issue altogether. That swedish ((Bjorn something)) expert wrote books and articles on easy, cheap, simple things to do that would help.
Cancer Cure frauds are especially evil given the reality of Cancer. Same with AGW with the deniers being the especially evil—given the reality of AGW.
Its like the budget: figure out what you want to do and be honest and direct about addressing the issues. Tax cuts for the rich don’t create trickle down benefits to all.
Just look.
Newfornat pouting his lips for maximum Sux says:
5/3/2012 at 9:46 pm
Ice floating on water, /// Yeah, thats why I wrote: “Ice sitting above sea level …” and thats what the issue is about==not ice in water. Your “orientation” to the subject, and what is clearly written is abysmally deficient.
when it melts, does not raise the level of the water. It was this topic discussion that convinced me Mr ConFusion was a total idiot. Hope you don’t go the same way. /// No, its turning out just the opposite.
There is no 150 foot sea level rise. Science projects less than 10 feet. Current rise is about 2-3 mm a year. /// Completely dependent on what time frame /ice loss you consider. Too easy to google. Again==basic facts.
Sea level rise has nothing to do with melting ice because on net there will be more ice not less, globally. /// Link? I don’t think even the nut cases say, or post, that kind of made up nonsense. Why are you?
You still haven’t answered why the sea level is going steadily up. And your only legitimate answer comes from SCIENCE and SCIENCE is all about AGW, Evolution, Germ Theory, Keynesian Economics, Genes. All kinds of advancements.
Sea level rises because the planet is getting warmer.
Ice floating on water is still above sea level. I was thinking in terms of icebergs. Perhaps you meant things like Greenland or Antarctic ice. The discussion with ConFusion was about Arctic ice.
The net gain of ice is because there will be ice gain in Antarctica which is too cold to melt(-50C). This gain will be more than the losses elsewhere. Antarctica is the big kahuna of ice.
http://alaskadispatch.com/article/greenlands-200-glaciers-not-melting-fast-some-feared
thanks for the link.
Did you read it?
Just like here at DU==the headline is sensational to grab readers, the article itself is much more negative, confirming there is glacier melt in Antarctica.
so–AGW remains complicated, ever only partially understood and so forth.
Meanwhile, the sea level continues to rise.
and for emPHAsis===no one, not even Alfie, talks about melting ice bergs.
No one.