Earth faces another ICE AGE within 15 YEARS as Russian scientists discover Sun 'cooli

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by sawyer, Oct 22, 2016.

  1. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There seems to be more information on this cooling sun thing coming out all the time and a new Maunder minimum era may be coming very soon. Nothing we can do about this but hold on to your hats I guess, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

    "Experts say that solar activity as low as it currently is has not been seen since the mini-ice age that took place between 1645 and 1715 – a period known as the Maunder Munimum where the entire Thames froze over.

    A new model has allowed experts to predict solar activity with more accuracy than ever before and it suggests that magnetic activity will fall by 60 per cent between 2030 and 2040.

    The model looks at the Sun’s ’11-year heartbeat’ – the period it takes for magnetic activity to fluctuate. This cycle was first discovered some 173 years ago.

    However, a mathematician has established a more up-to-date model that can forecast what the solar cycles will look like based upon dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun."
    Dynamo effects are a geophysical theory that dictate how the movement of the Earth’s outer core conducts materials like liquid iron across the magnetic field to create an electric current – this also influences fluid motion beneath Earth’s surface to create two magnetic fields along the axis of the Earth’s rotation.

    Valentina Zharkova from Northumbria University applied this theory to the Sun, and was able to predict the affects of solar cycles with 97 per cent accuracy"

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/723481/Earth-ICE-AGE-big-freeze-solar-activity
     
  2. Gaius_Marius

    Gaius_Marius Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    4,186
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Of course you get your "science" from tabloids and RT. :roflol: :roflol: :roflol:

    Thanks for that.

    You need this;

    [video=youtube;EU_AtHkB4Ms]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms[/video]
     
  3. Gaius_Marius

    Gaius_Marius Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    4,186
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And this;

    [video=youtube;adAvYK1O-ic]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adAvYK1O-ic&index=23&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP[/video]
     
  4. Befuddled Alien

    Befuddled Alien Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
  5. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    this was debunked even before it was posted.

    ;)
     
  6. The Bear

    The Bear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2016
    Messages:
    610
    Likes Received:
    461
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Looks like it's time to corner the sun screen market.
    The Express has not been reliable for some time.
     
  7. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually I get my science from this lady. Question is why are you so quick to disbelieve her?


    "Valentina Zharkova is a Professor in Mathematics at Northumbria University. She has a BSc/MSc in Applied Mathematics and Astronomy, a Ph.D. in Astrophysics, certificate in project management."

    "Northumbria University is a research-rich, business-focused, professional university with a global reputation for academic excellence.
    The results of the Research Excellence Framework in 2014 showed Northumbria was UK’s the biggest riser in the research power in the 2014 Research Excellence Framework with the third highest gain in in market share of research power in the sector."
     
  8. Befuddled Alien

    Befuddled Alien Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Actually, no you don't.

    Here is the original paper she published: Prediction of Solar Activity from Solar Background Magnetic Field Variations in Cycles 21-23

    ... and here is a good explanation of why it doesn't say what you think it says: The ‘mini ice age’ hoopla is a giant failure of science communication

    ... in fact, in her own words:
    She commented on how the changes in the Sun are likely to affect the Earth's environment. “During the minimum, the intensity of solar radiation will be reduced dramatically. So we will have less heat coming into the atmosphere, which will reduce the temperature.” However, Zharkova ends with a word of warning: not about the cold but about humanity's attitude toward the environment during the minimum. We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening. “The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions,” Zharkova says. "The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming."

    Seeing that you get your science views from her you must agree with these statements, yes?
     
  9. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    i read months ago that the upcoming Solar Minimum may reduce global warming by one degree
     
  10. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Nobody should be surprised. After 30 years of failed AGW predictions, revealed lies from the AGW proponents, and political browbeating to protect their jobs, the entire field of climate "science" is totally discredited.

    The real mystery is why anybody ever believed them in the first place. With all their education, research, satellites, weather stations, and computers they cannot predict the weather 3 days in advance, they cannot predict the hurricane season at all, they are not very good at predicting where a hurricane will go and its intensity, they are not very good at predicting shorter term (<5 year) climate, and people actually believe these climate "scientists" can predict the global climate for the next 200 years. :roflol:
     
  11. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh now I see why this thread brought out such venomous responses, you AGW cultist thought I was implying this hypothesis negates yours. The sun's effect on climate is irrefutable at some letvel.This lady's prediction is based on models and math that in your mind might somehow threaten your beliefs on global warming.IMO her prediction is interesting and worth taking note of but I wouldn't change public policy or even my own life style based on it. The OP never mentioned global warming once ,it was you and now others that got so defensive about a stand alone hypothesis that has nothing whatsoever to do with your AGW hypothesis. Boy are you guys ever defensive. Sorry to shake your little world's with a climate thread that's not about your religion. What a heretic I am, what blaspheme I committed.
     
  12. TRFjr

    TRFjr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    17,331
    Likes Received:
    8,800
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1 degree well that erases all the global warming we had in the last 100 years because that is all the climate temp has risen in the last 100 years .9 degrees
    so we will be back to the same temp we was 100 years ago. now just think if we didn't have any warming we would be 1 degree colder then we was 100 years ago and we would be talking about an ice age coming instead of global warming
     
  13. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually Sawyer is correct. You obviously did not read the actual paper. I do my homework.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/46/pdf

    Additionally she can be seen in the video in this link discussing how the AGW "mafia" worked to suppress her work. This is not suprizing as the vast majority of gov sponsored global warming activity is focussed on AGW and only AGW. Her work could be used to quantify solar contributions to global warming in order to quanitify as well AGW.

    http://www.thegwpf.com/new-solar-research-raises-climate-questions-triggers-attacks/

    - - - Updated - - -

    You and she committed the cardinal sin of suggesting that global warming was not 100% a result of human CO2 emissions.

    - - - Updated - - -

    No, actually the work comes from the The Astrophysical Journal, 795:46 (8pp), 2014 November 1.
     
  14. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When are text books going to stop lying about the evolution of humans? Geology proves that the climate and sea level have been radically changes for at least hundreds of millions of years, if not billions.

    It is a proven and indisputable fact that only humans can change the climate or sea levels. This is proof that humans have been in existence and industrialized at least hundreds of millions of years ago and even possibly billions of year. In fact, human predate even the dinosaurs and all other land creatures by geological records. Further, geological records of climate and sea level changes likely prove the very first life on earth was homo sapiens.

    There is no denying the proven fact that climate change and sea levels can only be changed by humans and no other factors can cause it.
     
  15. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yowzer !!! :alcoholic: (I appreciate the satire).
     
  16. Befuddled Alien

    Befuddled Alien Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    About what?
    Why is that? What did I say that leads you to believe this?
    k .. if you say so ...

    look, It's not really clear what you are trying to disagree with here. Could you clarify please?

    I have said:
    Do you disagree that the 'journalist' (yes I am using quotes there) who wrote the piece about an ice age coming in 15 years also wrote those other pieces?
    Do you disagree that the link is to the actual paper?

    Do you disagree with anything here? Do you think that the media actually does a great job of reporting science? Do you think we are headed for an ice age in 15 years as the article quoted by sawyer claims?

    Do you disagree that she said these things?


    Do you think that this question is an invalid one?

    Cuz if not then I have no idea what you are talking or imagining that I have said. This so called article is the exact thing that I have been against from my very first post on this forum. The biggest mystery in my mind would be why you don't also decry this supposed news article. If someone wanted to have an actual discussion about the research in the linked paper why not start with that? Why start with a bit from a trash journalist? Again, why would you defend this 'news' article?

    Really, what is it in your head that you imagine that I have said here. Do you think that I said that Zharkova is not a valid scientist? I didn't. Do you think that I said that the paper she authored is flawed? I didn't. Do you think that I said that Zharkova is a 'denier'? I didn't. Do you think that I implied that anything in her paper was incorrect? I didn't. Did I misrepresent any science at all here? Seriously. What is it that you disagree with? Or do you just disagree in general?
     
  17. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've provided the link to the actual paper. Those who actually do homework easily were able to discover it. BTW Ms. Zharkova is not a scientist, she is a mathematician. The quote you provided is meaningless because there is no quantification. The real point that she is making is that the AGW alarmist scientists attempted to discredit her work because it did not align with the AGW alarmist theory that all global warming is caused by humans. Ms. Zharkova is not a climate scientist and most likely believes in some of the propaganda that the alarmists are pedalling.
     
  18. Befuddled Alien

    Befuddled Alien Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Durr .. ya I know .. That's why I linked to it ... In post #8
    You would think you would get tired of being wrong. Although she is a professor of mathematics her Ph.D. in astrophysics more than qualifies her as a scientist. (For that matter, so does her work in mathematics). LINK

    I asked you 21 separate, direct questions. You answered zero. Seriously, which specific thing that I said do you object to?? Or do you just object out of habit? And most importantly from my point of view ... why on earth would you want to stand up for that POS news article?? Any honest scientific mind should decry that sort of nonsense. (Who knows? Maybe you buy into the alien and reincarnation articles by that dude as well. Is that it?)
     
  19. Befuddled Alien

    Befuddled Alien Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The title of the "news" article you to which you refer and your thread title alone is worth all the objections. It is woefully dishonest to claim that your thread has nothing to do with 'Global Warming' when it says in bold letters ICE AGE within 15 YEARS. But you are at least correct that the paper to which it refers is not related directly to AGW. What we object to is the bad science reporting and conspiracy theories and the trolls who spread both. So you tell me ... do you think this was a good news piece? If your inspiration was the scientific study in question why did you not link to it instead of a tabloid news piece? My guess would be that you had never even seen this paper before posting that news article. But by all means, go ahead and link to a prior post by you where you cited it, and you can prove that guess wrong.
     
  20. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not sure why you care if the link is to the actual study or from an article about it.I can only think it's an attempt by you to deflect and to invalidate this lady by attacking the source. The question I will ask you once again is why do you instantly recoil at any hypothesis about climate that is not propagating the AGW hypothesis? You remind me of these radical Islamist in a way. Anybody that even mentions another religion without disparaging it is an infidel. OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!
     
  21. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When you ask someone "21 direct questions" you deserve 0 answers. This is a classic leftist trick and they attempt to put you in an untenable position by using it. You answer a few they accuse you of running from the rest. You answer 0 they accuse you of running altogether and if you have no life at all and answer all 21 they just ask another 21. Nice try but it's obvious you are the one running here, running from real debate and discussion.
     
  22. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I respond to the paper she wrote and the situation by the AGW "hockey stick" goon squad which attempted to suppress that paper. That was not a news article - it was an opinion piece. All it takes is curiosity and initiative to get to the actual paper. Any analytical mind would do just that.
     
  23. Befuddled Alien

    Befuddled Alien Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I don't. You said you did. Specifically when you said:
    ...
    You have to ask it once to ask it again. You are mistaken if you believe you asked it before
    umm .. ok
    So your idea of 'real' debate and discussion is not answering questions? ... but expecting questions to be answered? got it.

    So you don't disagree with anything I actually wrote ... excellent. Thank you for clarifying that.
     
  24. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow, is that how your thought process works ?? 'splains a lot.
     
  25. Befuddled Alien

    Befuddled Alien Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18

Share This Page