Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Coss

The Prediction Thread

Recommended Posts

Research Indicates Northern Hemisphere Should Experience Mini Ice Age in 15 Years

http://www.piercepioneer.com/research-indicates-northern-hemisphere-should-experience-mini-ice-age-in-15-years/43186

 

'Mini Ice Age' headed our way by 2030: New solar model predicts colder planet

http://www.examiner.com/article/mini-ice-age-headed-our-way-by-2030-new-solar-model-predicts-colder-planet

 

'Mini ice age' coming in next fifteen years, new model of the Sun's cycle shows

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/mini-ice-age-coming-in-next-fifteen-years-new-model-of-the-suns-cycle-shows-10382400.html

 

 

Interesting stuff.

 

A question the alarmists could no doubt answer:

 

"How come the 'models' that predict catastrophic, anthropogenic, Global Warming, missed this one then?"

 

Or is a mini ice age just a temporary 'blip' on the path to being fried?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It's tax deductable ...

 

Data from general tax commissions held in Sunnfjord Fogderi, Norway, reveal a substantial decline in rural prosperity between 1667 and 1723. Late seventeenth and eighteenth century incidence of serious physical damage to farmlands is documented in tax relief proceedings. Environmental deterioration characterised the early years of the Little Ice Age in western Norway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Research Indicates Northern Hemisphere Should Experience Mini Ice Age in 15 Years

http://www.piercepio...-15-years/43186

 

'Mini Ice Age' headed our way by 2030: New solar model predicts colder planet

http://www.examiner....s-colder-planet

 

'Mini ice age' coming in next fifteen years, new model of the Sun's cycle shows

http://www.independe...s-10382400.html

 

 

Interesting stuff.

 

A question the alarmists could no doubt answer:

 

"How come the 'models' that predict catastrophic, anthropogenic, Global Warming, missed this one then?"

 

Or is a mini ice age just a temporary 'blip' on the path to being fried?

 

No, Earth is not heading toward a ‘mini ice age’

 

It’s a dramatic idea, but it isn’t being embraced by many climate scientists, who argue that anthropogenic global warming — brought on by a human outpouring of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere — will far outweigh any climate effects that might be caused by the sun. As far as the solar variations go, “The effect is a drop in the bucket, a barely detectable blip, on the overall warming trajectory we can expect over the next several decades from greenhouse warming,†more at the link

 

http://www.washingto...a-mini-ice-age/

 

I of course, oppose this view that anthropogenic global warming will far outweigh anything, and this is one that I'll live to see, 2030 roll on.

 

Non-anthropogenic global warming, how ever, is another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another one, misinformation at it's best.

 

The key tenets are:

 

Bambi factor, after Finding Nemo, Turtles are cute.

Facts, Turtle numbers are in decline, or at least, everyone seems to know this.

If sea levels rise, the Turtles nesting grounds will be flooded.

The Experiment shows that for eggs of Turtles, those underwater for six hours resulted in a 40 per cent increase in embryo deaths.

 

OK

 

Yes they are cute. And tasty.

Turtle numbers may be in decline, but this is more likely too be, lack of food, hunting etc, this Experiment's reporting, relies on a supposition that sea levels will rise significantly, not have risen significantly.

Turtles' nesting grounds, are beaches, just above high tide mark generally. Anyone who has lived next to beaches knows that they come and go on a regular basis, sometimes weekly, rising sea levels just mean the waves wash sand in or out, at a slightly higher level.

And lastly "a 40 per cent increase in embryo deaths" 40% of what number? From a million Eggs, is it 14 deaths over a norm of 10? or what? misleading.

 

Now read the article :)

 

Rising sea levels are likely to prove 'turtle disaster'

 

Rising sea levels are likely to prove a "turtle disaster" and people power may be required to ensure their survival, Queensland scientists have found.

 

An experiment has shown green sea turtle embryos are much more likely to die when they are inside eggs that go underwater for six hours.

 

Scientists say the study shows the turtles, which rely on low-lying coastal habitats, are likely to feel the early impacts of rising sea levels.

 

"In some places it only takes a small rise in sea levels, when combined with a storm or a king tide, to inundate what had previously been secure nesting sites," said lead researcher Dr David Pike of James Cook University.

 

The study used eggs from a green sea turtle hatchery on Queensland's Raine Island, which were exposed to saltwater for varying amounts of time.

 

Scientists found the eggs inundated for one or three hours showed no significant level of mortality.

 

However those underwater for six hours resulted in a 40 per cent increase in embryo deaths.

 

Dr Pike said this meant volunteers may be needed to physically move nests further inshore to save the species.

 

"We might be able to save them with people power," he said.

 

Raine Island, on the northern tip of the Great Barrier Reef, supports the world's largest green sea turtle nesting area, with as many as 60,000 females swimming from their feeding grounds thousands of kilometres away to lay their eggs.

 

But the turtle sanctuary is in danger of collapse due to rising sea levels and changes in the island's landscape.

 

Dr Pike said while inundation impacted the species' survival, the larger mystery surrounding the decline of green sea turtles on the island was yet to be solved.

 

He said turtle numbers were also likely impacted by other factors, including high microbial levels and heavy metals in the soil.

 

http://www.nzherald....jectid=11486724

 

I'll wait for 20 years and see if the turtles are still here.

 

Oh and if they are so concerned about the fate of the young of 60,000 Turtles on one Island, ( circa - mean clutch size = 112 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3892160?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) some 6,720,000 eggs, why are they experimenting in a way that kills them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get the ball rolling - 10,000-year-old Antarctic ice-shelf 'gone in five years'

 

http://www.nzherald....jectid=11450770

 

Antarctica's Larsen B ice-shelf is on course to disintegrate completely within the next five years, according to a study by US space agency Nasa.

 

The 10,000-year-old ice-shelf, which partially collapsed in 2002, is "quickly weakening" and likely to "disintegrate completely" before the end of the decade, researchers have predicted, after observing warning signs including large developing cracks and faster-flowing tributary glaciers.

 

"These are warning signs that the remnant is disintegrating," said Ala Khazendar of Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. etc etc

___

 

We have to wait 5 years for this one, but I'll still be here to see...

 

Developments:

 

Maximum sea ice extent in Antarctic breaks record highs in 2015

 

Antarctic maximum sea ice extent has broken a streak of record highs. The sea ice cover of the Southern Ocean reached its yearly maximum extent on Oct. 6. At 7.27 million square miles...

 

Antarctic maximum sea ice extent has broken a streak of record highs. The sea ice cover of the Southern Ocean reached its yearly maximum extent on Oct. 6.

 

At 7.27 million square miles (18.83 million square kilometers), the new maximum extent falls roughly in the middle of the record of Antarctic maximum extents compiled during the 37 years of satellite measurements – this year’s maximum extent is both the 22nd lowest and the 16th highest.

 

More remarkably, this year’s maximum is quite a bit smaller than the previous three years, which correspond to the three highest maximum extents in the satellite era, and is also the lowest since 2008.

 

The growth of Antarctic sea ice was erratic this year: sea ice was at much higher than normal levels throughout much of the first half of 2015 until, in mid-July, it flattened out and even went below normal levels in mid-August.

 

The sea ice cover recovered partially in September, but still this year’s maximum extent is 513,00 square miles (1.33 million square kilometers) below the record maximum extent, which was set in 2014.

 

Scientists believe this year’s strong El Nino event, a natural phenomenon that warms the surface waters of the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean, had an impact on the behavior of the sea ice cover around Antarctica.

 

After three record high extent years, this year marks a return toward normalcy for Antarctic sea ice, said Walt Meier, a sea ice scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, adding there may be more high years in the future because of the large year-to-year variation in Antarctic extent, but such extremes are not near as substantial as in the Arctic, where the declining trend towards a new normal is continuing.

 

This year’s maximum extent occurred fairly late: the mean date of the Antarctic maximum is Sept. 23 for 1981-2010.

 

http://www.financialexpress.com/article/lifestyle/science/maximum-sea-ice-extent-in-antarctic-breaks-record-highs-in-2015/152087/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My flight back to LOS was across the Arctic Ocean and Siberia. From what I could see in the downward view on the plane's cameras (when there wasn't cloud cover) there was still plenty of ice around. Canada's frozen north also looked like a good habit for popsicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get the ball rolling - 10,000-year-old Antarctic ice-shelf 'gone in five years'

http://www.nzherald....jectid=11450770

Antarctica's Larsen B ice-shelf is on course to disintegrate completely within the next five years, according to a study by US space agency Nasa.

The 10,000-year-old ice-shelf, which partially collapsed in 2002, is "quickly weakening" and likely to "disintegrate completely" before the end of the decade, researchers have predicted, after observing warning signs including large developing cracks and faster-flowing tributary glaciers.

"These are warning signs that the remnant is disintegrating," said Ala Khazendar of Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. etc etc

___

We have to wait 5 years for this one, but I'll still be here to see...

 

A progress report, showing how little is known, only 6 months later

-------

 

Antarctic science: Sea ice and climate change

 

This summer, the Herald will be travelling to Antarctica to meet Kiwi scientists working at the front line of Antarctic and climate science. As part of a lead-up series of interviews, Jamie Morton talks to NIWA’s Dr Craig Stevens, who has been part of a team camping at McMurdo Sound to investigate why Antarctic sea ice is not shrinking at the same rate as Arctic sea ice.

 

 

Firstly, can you describe your research programme on the ice, how this project has been developed, and how many scientists are involved?

 

We have a team of seven down here for this sampling but there are several colleagues based back in New Zealand who are also part of the research group.

 

I like to think of it as a continuum whereby we allow ideas to evolve as we work between field observation and computer modelling to see how our understanding needs to improve.

 

Our work looks at some very detailed aspects of a very large-scale problem.

 

We are measuring the properties - like temperature, salinity, turbulent energy, currents - in small volumes of seawater to try and improve models that work at the global scale.

 

This is because a lot of the action happens at the interface between ice and ocean.

 

The seasonal growth and decay in sea ice coverage is arguably the largest natural annual geophysical change on the planet, with the shrinking Arctic ice being one of the clearest manifestations of climate change.

 

But why is this shrinking Arctic ice not paralleled in the Antarctic?

 

We are researching the possibility that the answer lies in the production of supercooled seawater beneath the giant Antarctic ice shelves.

 

Because it is so cold, the ice shelf water influences sea ice growth far beyond the shelves that make up 40 per cent of Antarctica's coastline.

 

The main thrust of your work down there concerns "supercool" seawater, which helps drive sea ice growth. In layman's terms, can you elaborate: what exactly is "supercool" seawater and what large-scale part does it play in the Antarctic environment?

 

Supercool seawater is formed beneath ice shelves at depth when "warm" sea water melts the ice underside.

 

This melted water is very cold and a little fresher than normal seawater.

 

As a consequence it "drains upwards" until it reaches the edge of the shelf.

 

As it rises the reduction in pressure means that the freezing temperature rises and so it finds itself colder than the temperature at which it should form ice. A consequence of this is it forms ice crystals - platelet ice - that coats the underside of the sea ice and shallower parts of the ice shelves.

 

What are you hoping to discover or confirm, and where, and how physically, are you conducting your fieldwork on the ice?

 

Specifically we are trying to identify how rough the super-cool influenced underside of the sea ice is.

 

This is an important number to be able to put into models to get a better handle on heat transfer.

 

We are also developing techniques to improve temperature and salinity measurements of seawater that is colder than its freezing point.

 

I am primarily a field observationalist.

 

There is a lot of emphasis placed on predictive models, as you would expect.

 

However, these models are simply collections of our present understanding and are always challenged by the real world so there is much to do behind the scenes to enhance various aspects.

 

So yes, we base ourselves physically on the sea ice for several weeks and conduct a sequence of precision measurements.

 

Can you tell us a little about the environment and conditions you've been operating in? How challenging has it been and what have you been up against down there?

 

Conditions in Antarctica are pretty much always challenging.

 

However, collectively our team has been working here for many years - decades in some cases.

 

This, plus the support of Antarctica New Zealand, means we are pretty much as effective as we can be within the constraints of weather.

 

Once our field camp is in place we are impervious to weather as we are container based rather than tent based.

 

For scientists, the growth of sea ice extent around Antarctica has remained somewhat of a challenge to understand. Why is this? And how is it that extent has been growing as the rest of the planet's climate and sea surface warms?

 

Um, it's hard to measure!

 

It's hard to get here, it's hard to measure thickness of sea ice.

 

Possibilities for the modest growth - in area - around Antarctica relate to changed winds and the paradox that melting ice shelves generate very cold surface plumes that then enhance sea ice growth.

 

Changes in sea ice growth can also contribute to climate models. How might patterns observed here be relevant to the rest of us back here and around the world?

 

Sea ice growth is a vital part of any climate model.

 

It's is clear that our present models don't do so well at predicting present sea ice extent and so forward projections are questionable.

 

We are looking at ways of improving these models. Sea ice area is only one part of the puzzle.

 

Thickness is difficult to measure from satellite. In part because of exactly the thing we are looking at.

 

Ice crystals on the underside make for a complex material so that estimating thickness and volume from freeboard - the amount floating above water - is tough.

 

The data are highly relevant to coastal populations around the world.

 

Computer predictions suggest we could see many metres of sea level rise over the next few centuries - entire cities will need to shift, entire economies will be diverted to these moves.

 

Planning is essential if as a set of societies we wish to minimise impact.

 

These predictions are based on still incomplete understanding about what the important factors are.

 

We are researching aspects associated with how melting ice shelves affect sea ice patterns.

 

 

Lots of analysis of data, thinking about what it means, giving science and public talks, writing papers and getting them reviewed and published.

 

The work is part of a continuum as we have complementary experiments planned for next year.

 

Having developed techniques and understanding we need to apply this in different regimes.

 

So we are part of a large ice shelf experiment that will be drilling through the ice shelf next season and we have ocean sensors monitoring the temperatures and currents several hundred kilometres to the north.

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11542056

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much as I love Neil deGrasse Tyson, I fail to see how they can assert that a .05 degree difference is predictable, where scientists are concentrating their efforts on trying to find data to support models that often don't agree with observable fact.

 

Still, Tyson is a sensible fellow so I include the comments here.

---

 

Fortunately, astrophysicist and ace science communicator Neil deGrasse Tyson summarized in one tweet the difference between what is at stake at these talks for poor nations, such as the Marshall Islands, Bangladesh and the Philippines, compared to industrialized nations like the United States and European Union.

 

 

 

His tweet speaks to why developing countries have been so adamant about including a reference to a lower temperature target — 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels — rather than the 2-degree target countries agreed to a few years ago. The 0.5-degree difference is a matter of life or death for some low-lying nations that are already losing ground to the sea.

 

http://mashable.com/...t/#j.eBq6ZRX8qB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the sticking point in the negotiations might be how much money the developed counties are going to pay the emerging world to " compensate " them for not using dirty fuels/sources of energy." Blackmale " is such an ugly word. :grinyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...