Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict

[Boogahz]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.j ... ate130.xml

Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said.

Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a "lull" for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North America is expected to cool slightly over the decade while the tropical Pacific remains unchanged.

This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.

However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model.

Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, said: "The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade. Our prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but it will pick up after that."

He stressed that the results were just the initial findings from a new computer model of how the oceans behave over decades and it would be wholly misleading to infer that global warming, in the sense of the enhanced greenhouse effect from increased carbon emissions, had gone away.

The IPCC currently does not include in its models actual records of such events as the strength of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cyclical warming event in the Pacific, which are known to have been behind the warmest year ever recorded in 1998.

Today's paper in Nature tries to simulate the variability of these events and longer cycles, such as the giant ocean "conveyor belt" known as the meridional overturning circulation (MOC), which brings warm water north into the North East Atlantic.

This has a 70 to 80-year cycle and when the circulation is strong, it creates warmer temperatures in Europe. When it is weak, as it will be over the next decade, temperatures fall. Scientists think that variations of this kind could partly explain the cooling of global average temperatures between the 1940s and 1970s after which temperatures rose again.

Writing in Nature, the scientists said: "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic [manmade] warming."

The study shows a more pronounced weakening effect than the Met Office's Hadley Centre, which last year predicted that global warming would slow until 2009 and pick up after that, with half the years after 2009 being warmer than the warmest year on record, 1998.

Commenting on the new study, Richard Wood of the Hadley Centre said the model suggested the weakening of the MOC would have a cooling effect around the North Atlantic.

"Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"That emphasises once again the need to consider climate variability and climate change together when making predictions over timescales of decades."

But he said the use of just sea surface temperatures might not accurately reflect the state of the MOC, which was several miles deep and dependent on factors besides temperatures, such as salt content, which were included in the Met Office Hadley Centre model.

If the model could accurately forecast other variables besides temperature, such as rainfall, it would be increasingly useful, but climate predictions for a decade ahead would always be to some extent uncertain, he added.

The headline was a little misleading, as the article even points out that the temperatures should start rising again in 2015. I was going to highlight bits of the article, but I felt that the whole thing made more sense together. What I wonder most about is, why wouldn't the IPCC report include patterns such as the Gulf Stream and El Nino cycles mentioned in this article?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

The headline was a little misleading, as the article even points out that the temperatures should start rising again in 2015. I was going to highlight bits of the article, but I felt that the whole thing made more sense together. What I wonder most about is, why wouldn't the IPCC report include patterns such as the Gulf Stream and El Nino cycles mentioned in this article?

[Aslanna]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.j ... ate130.xml

Global warming will stop until at least 2015...

That's as far as I got. How can it "stop" when it never even started? That was just a myth that you lemmiwinks bought into! Open your eyes and see the big picture!

[Fash]

Don't be silly, cunt. Nobody denies the warming/cooling of the globe. Speculation is on our involvement, and the solutions presented.

[Spang]

She (or he) was only trying being funny, poopy pants!

[Funkmasterr]

She (or he) was only trying being funny, poopy pants!

ive been over this before he/she/it = shit = aslanna

[Spang]

I completely butchered that post.

[Canelek]

You people are pretty frightened of women.

[Funkmasterr]

You people are pretty frightened of women.

what do you mean "you people"

fuckin racist

[Winnow]

You people are pretty frightened of women.

I can neither confirm or deny that I'm frightened of women until Hillary's gender is confirmed.

[Aslanna]

You people are pretty frightened of women.

what do you mean "you people"

fuckin racist

Despite the longterm inbreeding of your people 'ignorant redneck poopyhead' is not a race.

[Funkmasterr]

You people are pretty frightened of women.

what do you mean "you people"

fuckin racist

Despite the longterm inbreeding of your people 'ignorant redneck poopyhead' is not a race.

FUK U HITLER

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

http://dictionary.die.net/redneck

redneck
n : a poor white person in the southern US [syn: cracker]



It indeed is a racial term.

[Funkmasterr]

http://dictionary.die.net/redneck

redneck
n : a poor white person in the southern US [syn: cracker]



It indeed is a racial term.

thank you but its ok cause i already won

[Aslanna]

I know it's a matter of pride for you but are you honestly claiming that rednecks are a distinct and unique race of 'white people''?

[Boogahz]

The headline was a little misleading, as the article even points out that the temperatures should start rising again in 2015. I was going to highlight bits of the article, but I felt that the whole thing made more sense together. What I wonder most about is, why wouldn't the IPCC report include patterns such as the Gulf Stream and El Nino cycles mentioned in this article?

I know it was silly, but I was not trying to ask in a sarcastic way. If these reports are the reference to use in judging what is happening to the world we live in, how did it not factor things like those two specific patterns in? What else was left out? Were variances allowed to account for them? What about volcanic activity? Was it included or excluded? Note again that the article I quoted even states that it is not disproving what was done before, but it was delaying the increase in temperatures by around 7 years.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

If natural cooling trends exist, maybe natural warming trends exist.

[Fash]

I know it was silly, but I was not trying to ask in a sarcastic way. If these reports are the reference to use in judging what is happening to the world we live in, how did it not factor things like those two specific patterns in? What else was left out? Were variances allowed to account for them? What about volcanic activity? Was it included or excluded? Note again that the article I quoted even states that it is not disproving what was done before, but it was delaying the increase in temperatures by around 7 years.

These are the details that should be discussed and picked apart, so kudos for asking them. Perhaps Animale has some answers about whether or not the report included these things.

I hope the science and evidence continue to hack away at the climate crisis issue, and that more people become skeptical of this mockery of science and selective reporting. It would also help if people like Al Gore would stop demonizing skeptics.

[Ashur]

Could Global Warming stop now and resume again in, say, November?

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

I know it's a matter of pride for you but are you honestly claiming that rednecks are a distinct and unique race of 'white people''?

When it can only mean a white person, then yes it is racist term.

[Animale]

These are the details that should be discussed and picked apart, so kudos for asking them. Perhaps Animale has some answers about whether or not the report included these things.

I hope the science and evidence continue to hack away at the climate crisis issue, and that more people become skeptical of this mockery of science and selective reporting. It would also help if people like Al Gore would stop demonizing skeptics.

Yep, chapters 6, 7, and 9 of working group 1 deal with "natural" variation in climate, and how to appropriate the variations into the models (it's also part of how models are evaluated - chapter . Now this is another piece of data to add into the models, but it doesn't change much overall (some of the models have predicted a bit of this - see chapter 10 for the model predictions - particularly figures 10.5 and 10.7).

It's hard not to "demonize" skeptics when the points they bring up have already been addressed and either taken into consideration or dismissed as unlikely in view of the preponderance of evidence. It's not like climate scientists don't think about these alternative possibilities or ignore them because they don't "fit" into their models. They either take them into account, or disregard them because they don't significantly alter their results while adding significant time/effort to their work. Now, if computer processing time was unlimited and free, we could include everything in the calculations - but it isn't unlimited nor free so things deemed to be insignificant (usually by initial, less intensive calculations) need to be cut out for the sake of getting a result on the higher level calculations. That's the reality of science.

So all this huffing of "the scientists got it wrong!!!!!" when temperature doesn't go up in a straight line is pretty disingenuous and, in my mind, obviously politically/personally motivated. It's hard to keep a straight face to that, it really is.

Animale

[Funkmasterr]

These are the details that should be discussed and picked apart, so kudos for asking them. Perhaps Animale has some answers about whether or not the report included these things.

I hope the science and evidence continue to hack away at the climate crisis issue, and that more people become skeptical of this mockery of science and selective reporting. It would also help if people like Al Gore would stop demonizing skeptics.

Yep, chapters 6, 7, and 9 of working group 1 deal with "natural" variation in climate, and how to appropriate the variations into the models (it's also part of how models are evaluated - chapter . Now this is another piece of data to add into the models, but it doesn't change much overall (some of the models have predicted a bit of this - see chapter 10 for the model predictions - particularly figures 10.5 and 10.7).

It's hard not to "demonize" skeptics when the points they bring up have already been addressed and either taken into consideration or dismissed as unlikely in view of the preponderance of evidence. It's not like climate scientists don't think about these alternative possibilities or ignore them because they don't "fit" into their models. They either take them into account, or disregard them because they don't significantly alter their results while adding significant time/effort to their work. Now, if computer processing time was unlimited and free, we could include everything in the calculations - but it isn't unlimited nor free so things deemed to be insignificant (usually by initial, less intensive calculations) need to be cut out for the sake of getting a result on the higher level calculations. That's the reality of science.

So all this huffing of "the scientists got it wrong!!!!!" when temperature doesn't go up in a straight line is pretty disingenuous and, in my mind, obviously politically/personally motivated. It's hard to keep a straight face to that, it really is.

Animale

Now you know how I feel.

[Fash]

Now, if computer processing time was unlimited and free, we could include everything in the calculations - but it isn't unlimited nor free so things deemed to be insignificant (usually by initial, less intensive calculations) need to be cut out for the sake of getting a result on the higher level calculations. That's the reality of science.

By that definition I'd say climate science is more speculation than science. Something that seems insignificant could be a key factor and completely overlooked. If you can't be absolutely sure, then why so brazen? (not you specifically)

To you a few variables might be insignificant... to me, 1 degree celsius in 100 years is insignificant.

So all this huffing of "the scientists got it wrong!!!!!" when temperature doesn't go up in a straight line is pretty disingenuous and, in my mind, obviously politically/personally motivated. It's hard to keep a straight face to that, it really is.

As you know I try to keep my argument about the solutions that are on the policy side... I think you realize that the policy side is driving the process and funding the research... I am less inclined to declare they got it wrong than I am to say that the data they had to work with was bad, and their calculation capacity was insufficient.

Let the Market sort it out... none of this cap and trade carbon credit crap is going to help the environment.

[Zaelath]

Now, if computer processing time was unlimited and free, we could include everything in the calculations - but it isn't unlimited nor free so things deemed to be insignificant (usually by initial, less intensive calculations) need to be cut out for the sake of getting a result on the higher level calculations. That's the reality of science.

By that definition I'd say climate science is more speculation than science.

Perhaps you need to go back and read up on how science works.

[Fash]

Perhaps you need to go back and read up on how science works.

I'm well aware, thanks. I love science and did very well with it in school. It has limitations, that's all I'm saying. I rely upon science quite dogmatically for most things that take place on earth without outside interference. I am optimistic but skeptical of our grasp and accuracy when the variable count approaches infinity.

[Zaelath]

Perhaps you need to go back and read up on how science works.

I'm well aware, thanks. I love science and did very well with it in school. It has limitations, that's all I'm saying.

You'd prefer perhaps trusting to superstition?

I don't contend science is perfect, in fact I would contend it can't prove anything, but it makes a much better argument than every other option.

[Fash]

You'd prefer perhaps trusting to superstition?

I don't contend science is perfect, in fact I would contend it can't prove anything, but it makes a much better argument than every other option.

I'd prefer there be no 'crisis' marketing of something that may very well be entirely incorrect and a pointless waste of money that further erodes our freedoms.

I'd prefer the debate be about the solutions and the research be about the impact of those solutions.

[Zaelath]

You'd prefer perhaps trusting to superstition?

I don't contend science is perfect, in fact I would contend it can't prove anything, but it makes a much better argument than every other option.

I'd prefer there be no 'crisis' marketing of something that may very well be entirely incorrect and a pointless waste of money that further erodes our freedoms.

I'd prefer the debate be about the solutions and the research be about the impact of those solutions.

Right, cause scientists, on the whole, are into marketing. It's not the corporates that are pushing their schills to cast doubt that are doing the marketing, it's the scientists, that have no vested interests other than their reputation.

Do you not see how that doesn't pass the laugh test?

[Spang]

Scientists are in it for the money and the women.

[Animale]

Let the Market sort it out... none of this cap and trade carbon credit crap is going to help the environment.

The thing is, the "market" doesn't have any driving force for change on this matter. Fossil fuels will remain the cheapest source of energy for both the short term(petroleum) and long term (coal), so there needs to be a way to connect pollution levels (CO2, others) with the costs to allow markets to work. Is "cap and trade" the way to do this... probably not. That being said, there needs to be governmental action to force companies to look at whole lifetime costs of what they produce world-wide, or everybody is just going to transfer their low upfront cost operations to places where there are more lax controls and therefore more governmental subsidies of end-life costs such as disposal and cleanup.

That's a point that needs to be made clearer I think, lax environmental regulations on industry result in high governmental costs for the inevitable cleanup. This has been true for a long time in many industries (as I'm from the West its logging, mining, and grazing that come immediately to mind here) where the taxpayer is left holding the bag when companies goes belly up after milking the environment for all they can. In essence, everybody in the country is paying directly out of their pockets for poor environmental policies and enforcement. If we had spent a little more money up front on the creation of sound policies and effective enforcement, we would owe so much less now. But that would be "anti-business" so we're left paying for it from the government coffers when the money could be spent trying to prevent the NEXT mess.

Animale

[Nick]

Scientists are in it for the money and the women.

[Spang]

Why do you think Don Herbert and Bill Nye had those shows?

For the PUSSY!

[Canelek]

Word on the street is the Mr Wizard tapped many an ass.

[Hesten]

I know it's a matter of pride for you but are you honestly claiming that rednecks are a distinct and unique race of 'white people''?

Hmmm, i actually wonder. Couldnt a black person be a redneck too, if he fit the stereotype?
I at least knew one guy from one Yugoslavia, who although he was also a foreigner in denmark, spoke fairy bad danish, still hated muslims, was completely unable to treat women with respect and seeing them as something other than sex objects, and was a member of a far right political party who compared muslims to rats and want them out of the country (just checked their home page, theyre actually comparing the muslims living in denmark to chinas occupation of tibet, not kidding).
I would say that if we had the term "redneck" in denmark, he would have fitted perfectly, apart from not being from denmark originally.

[Spang]

They use another word for black people that fit the redneck description.

[Boogahz]

I would say that if we had the term "redneck" in denmark, he would have fitted perfectly, apart from not being from denmark originally.

That isn't a redneck.

It's hard not to "demonize" skeptics when the points they bring up have already been addressed and either taken into consideration or dismissed as unlikely in view of the preponderance of evidence. It's not like climate scientists don't think about these alternative possibilities or ignore them because they don't "fit" into their models. They either take them into account, or disregard them because they don't significantly alter their results while adding significant time/effort to their work. Now, if computer processing time was unlimited and free, we could include everything in the calculations - but it isn't unlimited nor free so things deemed to be insignificant (usually by initial, less intensive calculations) need to be cut out for the sake of getting a result on the higher level calculations. That's the reality of science.

So all this huffing of "the scientists got it wrong!!!!!" when temperature doesn't go up in a straight line is pretty disingenuous and, in my mind, obviously politically/personally motivated. It's hard to keep a straight face to that, it really is.

I think that it is the demonization of skeptics, scientists in particular, which reduces the credibility of supporters and the reports they have produced. Anything which is published stands to be critiqued, proven, or disproven. Minimalizing the level of "expertise" of any researcher in a field of so many variables, to me, only serves to lower my opinion of the validity of the original reports. Accepting that there are still variables which could completely disprove what has come before, and welcoming people to contribute to the research already done would be more likely, once again in my opinion, to pull the skeptics into a position that they are more likely to buy-in to the information being presented.

For years, we have been subjected to "facts" that turn out to be driven by politics or business. If transparency is lacking, or if dissenting opinions are shrugged off as lunacy, the "facts" become less important to the outside observer. This is also where I feel that several people are coming out and saying that the "crisis" element of the situation is all that they disagree with. I don't think anyone, here at least, truly believes that Man does not have an impact on the environment.

[Animale]

I think that it is the demonization of skeptics, scientists in particular, which reduces the credibility of supporters and the reports they have produced. Anything which is published stands to be critiqued, proven, or disproven. Minimalizing the level of "expertise" of any researcher in a field of so many variables, to me, only serves to lower my opinion of the validity of the original reports. Accepting that there are still variables which could completely disprove what has come before, and welcoming people to contribute to the research already done would be more likely, once again in my opinion, to pull the skeptics into a position that they are more likely to buy-in to the information being presented.

For years, we have been subjected to "facts" that turn out to be driven by politics or business. If transparency is lacking, or if dissenting opinions are shrugged off as lunacy, the "facts" become less important to the outside observer. This is also where I feel that several people are coming out and saying that the "crisis" element of the situation is all that they disagree with. I don't think anyone, here at least, truly believes that Man does not have an impact on the environment.

Another point that people seem to miss is that there is a set of scientists similar in size to the so-called "skeptics" community who believe that their data show that the problem is MUCH larger than the preponderence of evidence IPCC report shows. This group, lets call them "doomsdayers", is equally minimalized within the scientific community as the skeptics are - because they make conclusions based on data that either nobody else thinks is valid, or make conclusions that vary widely from the rest of the field's thoughts when looking at the data and simulations. As somebody not in the field directly, but as a scientist in general who has to decide what chemistry research to do, should we give the same credence to the doomsdayers as to the skeptics... or should we follow the mainstream conclusions that most scientists in the field think is pretty darn close.

It's not like this is merely an "IPCC" vs. skeptics thing, IPCC is very conservative in the overall scheme of the community. From talking with the climate scientists here at LBL I'd say it lies (to use a political analogy) pretty firmly on the moderate Republican side of things in terms of the overall community. There are far lefties (doomsdayers) and far righties (skeptics), and then the consensus middle, which when governmental opinions are added in shifts the final report to the right a tad. So, the skeptics don't think its reasonable and the doomsdayers think it doesn't go far enough... so maybe it's actually about correct.

Animale

[Fash]

None of that means anything if the policy side picks useless and counter-productive solutions. You do see the very real possibility that despite good intentions the overall impact of all of this could be worse for the environment, right?

[Animale]

Yes, but that's a different argument entirely. The right wing talk show type people (not you) basically refuse to talk about sound policy because they don't believe anything needs to be done in the first place. Therefore, why rock the boat to the extent needed policy-wise. In essence, the starting point of "we need to do something" isn't present with people of that opinion, so why even have a policy debate?

Now, if somebody wants to talk about the policy side of things, that's fine and dandy. However, I firmly think that the only possible way to do combat this is through governmental policy and regulation - because the "market" is NOT going to be driven because fossil fuels will remain relatively cheap and widely available for the foreseeable future unless governments find a way to input the entire cost of burning fuels (pollution, climate modification, etc.) into the front end where business sees it on the quarterly bottom line. Publically traded companies, with a few notable exceptions, don't often think in the long term (10+ years) like governments can and have to do. Therefore, it lies on government to creat policies that prevent the long term effects of these issues (10-50 years out).

That being said, cap and trade does provide a mechanism for markets to work on lowering overall CO2 production even if it isn't the "best" way to do so due to inherent market manipulation, carbon credit fraud, etc. But it can be a starting point to monetize total product life issues until we find something better. It has worked fairly well in Europe, with a few hiccups, and can probably work well here... but probably can't be the worldwide solution as I doubt China and India would play ball with it. But that isn't a reason to do nothing, better to take a leadership position and begin non-governmental funding of the technical and scientific advances needed to create a better energy future now than be left with our thumbs up our butts when it becomes an obvious issue (either when petroleum stocks begin to plummet or when the environmental effects are too large for even the largest skeptic to ignore)

Animale

[Metanis]

However, I firmly think that the only possible way to do combat this is through governmental policy and regulation -

This is a case where the cure is going to be terribly worse than the disease. The earth changes, we change. Big deal. Get over it. The whole debate is predicated on two feelings. The first is the feeling that climate change is bad. The second is the feeling that humans should not effect change on the environment. Both are simply points of religious viewpoint and subject to adherence through faith rather than reason.

Look out the window. The climate was different 500 years ago. It was different 5000 years ago. What makes the condition "NOW" something mythically special? That's a pretty amazingly myopic and self-important attitude. What's wrong with adaptation? We've been doing it through the entire history of our species. (Gosh, that would be like evolution huh?)

If you want to ban the use of fossil fuels then give it a shot, just be aware there will be many dissenting voices pointing at the evidence and saying, "Not so effing fast!". And we'll be pointing at the examples set by the high priests like Algore, Mr. 221,000kwH consumed last year and also known as the quintessential Lear Jet Liberal. (That was sarcasm by the way.)

A lot of truly poor people in the 3rd world are going to starve to death due to idiotic "Green" policies trying to control carbon dioxide emissions. They aren't going to take kindly to the developed world telling them, "Don't do as I do, do as I say!" (Algore's example comes to mind again!)

In truth the Green Movement is just another false religion. And like so many false religions, they are going to kill millions of people before their time is over.

[Zaelath]

And, what do you think the global population was 5000 years ago, Methusela?

What? You forgot to take into account a varible? Say it ain't so...

[Metanis]

And, what do you think the global population was 5000 years ago, Methusela?

What? You forgot to take into account a varible? Say it ain't so...

I'd say your reading comprehension sucks hind tit.

[Kaldaur]

Who wants to ban fossil fuels exactly?

[Zaelath]

And, what do you think the global population was 5000 years ago, Methusela?

What? You forgot to take into account a varible? Say it ain't so...

I'd say your reading comprehension sucks hind tit.

Comprehension is difficult when you're reading incoherent ramblings, but you say "the climate changes, we change". If the climate changes as much as predicted we don't "change" so much as die out.

Hence my question, what do you think the global population was 5000 years ago? or during any ice age/extreme temperature shift.

Pretty sure that's on topic/coherent, yet the anithesis to your wide-eyed optimisim that everything will be alright "just because"

[Noysyrump]

I think Chile need to buy more carbon credits...

[Winnow]

The Sun is Dead!

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... t-mys.html

The Sunspot Enigma: The Sun is “Dead”—What Does it Mean for Earth?

Dark spots, some as large as 50,000 miles in diameter, typically move across the surface of the sun, contracting and expanding as they go. These strange and powerful phenomena are known as sunspots, but now they are all gone. Not even solar physicists know why it’s happening and what this odd solar silence might be indicating for our future.

Although periods of inactivity are normal for the sun, this current period has gone on much longer than usual and scientists are starting to worry—at least a little bit. Recently 100 scientists from Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa and North America gathered to discuss the issue at an international solar conference at Montana State University. Today's sun is as inactive as it was two years ago, and solar physicists don’t have a clue as to why.

"It continues to be dead," said Saku Tsuneta with the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, program manager for the Hinode solar mission, noting that it is at least a little bit worrisome for scientists.

Dana Longcope, a solar physicist at MSU, said the sun usually operates on an 11-year cycle with maximum activity occurring in the middle of the cycle. The last cycle reached its peak in 2001 and is believed to be just ending now, Longcope said. The next cycle is just beginning and is expected to reach its peak sometime around 2012. But so far nothing is happening.

"It's a dead face," Tsuneta said of the sun's appearance.

Tsuneta said solar physicists aren't weather forecasters and they can't predict the future. They do have the ability to observe, however, and they have observed a longer-than-normal period of solar inactivity. In the past, they observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots. That period coincided with a little ice age on Earth that lasted from 1650 to 1700. Coincidence? Some scientists say it was, but many worry that it wasn’t.

Geophysicist Phil Chapman, the first Australian to become an astronaut with NASA, said pictures from the US Solar and Heliospheric Observatory also show that there are currently no spots on the sun. He also noted that the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7C.

"This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930," Dr Chapman noted in The Australian today.

If the world does face another mini Ice Age, it could come without warning. Evidence for abrupt climate change is readily found in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica. One of the best known examples of such an event is the Younger Dryas cooling, which occurred about 12,000 years ago, named after the arctic wildflower found in northern European sediments. This event began and ended rather abruptly, and for its entire 1000 year duration the North Atlantic region was about 5°C colder. Could something like this happen again? There’s no way to tell, and because the changes can happen all within one decade—we might not even see it coming.

The Younger Dryas occurred at a time when orbital forcing should have continued to drive climate to the present warm state. The unexplained phenomenon has been the topic of much intense scientific debate, as well as other millennial scale events.

Now this 11-year low in Sunspot activity has raised fears among a small but growing number of scientists that rather than getting warmer, the Earth could possibly be about to return to another cooling period. The idea is especially intriguing considering that most of the world is in preparation for global warming.

Canadian scientist Kenneth Tapping of the National Research Council has also noted that solar activity has entered into an unusually inactive phase, but what that means—if anything—is still anyone’s guess. Another solar scientist, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, however, is certain that it’s an indication of a coming cooling period.

Sorokhtin believes that a lack of sunspots does indicate a coming cooling period based on certain past trends and early records. In fact, he calls manmade climate change "a drop in the bucket" compared to the fierce and abrupt cold that can potentially be brought on by inactive solar phases.

Sorokhtin’s advice: "Stock up on fur coats"…just in case.

Posted by Rebecca Sato

[Nick]

That is a fucking awful article.

[Winnow]

Maybe someone will be kind enough to translate it into Irish for you.

[Funkmasterr]

Maybe someone will be kind enough to translate it into Irish for you.

Nick - why is it an awful article? Because you don't agree with or like what they are saying? Are scientists opinions only valid and worth considering when their beliefs/theories are in line with your own? I sure as hell know I'm in no position to judge it.

[Nick]

http://space.newscientist.com/article/d ... mpsed.html