BBC: A New Little Ice Age Coming?

[MSimon]

Now a leading scientist from Reading University has told me that the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there’s a real risk of seeing a return of such conditions.

I’ve been to see Professor Mike Lockwood to take a look at the work he has been conducting into the possible link between solar activity and climate patterns.

According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985.

Since then the sun has been getting quieter.

By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, he has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years.

Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.

He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now - and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.

Based on his findings he’s raised the risk of a new Maunder minimum from less than 10% just a few years ago to 25-30%.

And a repeat of the Dalton solar minimum which occurred in the early 1800s, which also had its fair share of cold winters and poor summers, is, according to him, ‘more likely than not’ to happen.

He believes that we are already beginning to see a change in our climate - witness the colder winters and poor summers of recent years - and that over the next few decades there could be a slide to a new Maunder minimum.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/p ... -scientist

We may be preparing for the wrong catastrophe.

[Diogenes]

That is par for the course when you note that it has been Liberals pushing this crap. They are a nearly perfect reverse barometer.


There connection to "wrong" is almost magical. If they suddenly announced that the real threat was an ice age, I have no doubt the sun would immediately awaken from it's slumber.

[hanelyp]

At this point, I rate the little ice age projections as more credible that the warming scare, and of much more serious impact if they come true.

[MSimon]

That is par for the course when you note that it has been Liberals pushing this crap. They are a nearly perfect reverse barometer.

There connection to "wrong" is almost magical. If they suddenly announced that the real threat was an ice age, I have no doubt the sun would immediately awaken from it's slumber.

That actually happened at the peak of the Ice Age hysteria around '79 - '85.

They make excuses for the hysterias that alternate on about a 30 year cycle starting around 1890. The Ice Age theory was that soot from coal plants was doing it. But his time it is different. It is CO2. Mainly from coal. You would almost think that anti-coal forces were behind climate hysteria.

But the right is not immune from magical thinking. One of their big ones is "drugs cause addiction" (I define addiction as the inability to quit even after detox).

The real problem is human nature. Magical thinking dies hard. And that is because we are only open to new ideas between ages 15 and 25 due to the body's high production of endocannabinoids in that age cohort. You want a revolution? Capture the young.

[MSimon]

That is par for the course when you note that it has been Liberals pushing this crap. They are a nearly perfect reverse barometer.

There connection to "wrong" is almost magical. If they suddenly announced that the real threat was an ice age, I have no doubt the sun would immediately awaken from it's slumber.

That actually happened at the peak of the Ice Age hysteria around '79 - '85.

They make excuses for the hysterias that alternate on about a 30 year cycle starting around 1890. The Ice Age theory was that soot from coal plants was doing it. But his time it is different. It is CO2. Mainly from coal. You would almost think that anti-coal forces were behind climate hysteria.

But the right is not immune from magical thinking. One of their big ones is "drugs cause addiction" (I define addiction as the inability to quit even after detox).

The real problem is human nature. Magical thinking dies hard. And that is because we are only open to new ideas between ages 15 and 25 due to the body's high production of endocannabinoids in that age cohort. You want a revolution? Capture the young.

[Diogenes]

That is par for the course when you note that it has been Liberals pushing this crap. They are a nearly perfect reverse barometer.

There connection to "wrong" is almost magical. If they suddenly announced that the real threat was an ice age, I have no doubt the sun would immediately awaken from it's slumber.

That actually happened at the peak of the Ice Age hysteria around '79 - '85.

They make excuses for the hysterias that alternate on about a 30 year cycle starting around 1890. The Ice Age theory was that soot from coal plants was doing it. But his time it is different. It is CO2. Mainly from coal. You would almost think that anti-coal forces were behind climate hysteria.

But the right is not immune from magical thinking. One of their big ones is "drugs cause addiction" (I define addiction as the inability to quit even after detox).

The real problem is human nature. Magical thinking dies hard. And that is because we are only open to new ideas between ages 15 and 25 due to the body's high production of endocannabinoids in that age cohort. You want a revolution? Capture the young.

I knew you were going to get a drug dig into your response. You simply can't help it.


Most people are born predisposed to addiction. They simply don't discover it until they acquire the addicting substance.

[Diogenes]

At this point, I rate the little ice age projections as more credible that the warming scare, and of much more serious impact if they come true.

Agreed. Global warming wouldn't reduce the habitable zone all that much (if any) , but mile thick ice in Kansas? Where are all those people above that latitude going to go?

[MSimon]

That is par for the course when you note that it has been Liberals pushing this crap. They are a nearly perfect reverse barometer.

There connection to "wrong" is almost magical. If they suddenly announced that the real threat was an ice age, I have no doubt the sun would immediately awaken from it's slumber.

That actually happened at the peak of the Ice Age hysteria around '79 - '85.

They make excuses for the hysterias that alternate on about a 30 year cycle starting around 1890. The Ice Age theory was that soot from coal plants was doing it. But his time it is different. It is CO2. Mainly from coal. You would almost think that anti-coal forces were behind climate hysteria.

But the right is not immune from magical thinking. One of their big ones is "drugs cause addiction" (I define addiction as the inability to quit even after detox).

The real problem is human nature. Magical thinking dies hard. And that is because we are only open to new ideas between ages 15 and 25 due to the body's high production of endocannabinoids in that age cohort. You want a revolution? Capture the young.

I knew you were going to get a drug dig into your response. You simply can't help it. :)

Most people are born predisposed to addiction. They simply don't discover it until they acquire the addicting substance.

Actually it is not most people. Only about 20% of the population is genetically predisposed to addiction. And of that 20% only about 1/2 get enough trauma to make them "addicts". It is why in the initial trials of heroin (10 people or so) it was declared non-addictive. None of them had the gene and sufficient trauma.

You might want to look up the incidence of PTSD to confirm the above. PTSD is the pain in the brain. So far the only known cure for PTSD is time. And in some cases it takes more than a lifetime. The best we can do is keep the patient comfortable - give them drugs. Pot works for the milder cases and heroin is indicated for severe cases.

But most people are unaware of the facts so they are perfectly comfortable with a war on the traumatized.

I have put the above facts before you in the past. But learning is very difficult for most people after age 25 if the learning conflicts with their world view. So it takes about 50 years for a new world view to get through the demographic python. It is especially difficult when a LOT of people are profiting from the old world view. Then it takes longer.

Overall I'd say the left is more dangerous. But the right has similar impulses about different things and the mind set on the right gives the left aid and comfort. The general mind set is "we know what is best for you and are perfectly comfortable forcing you to do the right thing - provided we can convince the legislature." There are very limited circumstance where that can work. Force and fraud are the general categories. Trying to keep people from harming themselves is generally a fools errand because people will need to be watched. You will need a police state. Which the right abhors "except for". And the flood gates are open.

Yes. Leaving people alone has its dangers. A police state is not one of them.

The attitude "everything will be all right if WE control the power" enables the left. Much safer is to reduce the power to the minimum. Unless you like the EPA. And the rest. The Republicans of 1900 used to know this. Today? We have two big government parties. The main difference is what they intend to do with the power. The power itself is not in question. Pity.

[Schneibster]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/p ... -scientist

We may be preparing for the wrong catastrophe.

So are there 14,000 papers on this one too?

More obfuscation.

Oh and does he have an explanation for the two X-class solar flares last week, if we're in or heading for a Maunder Minimum?

Oh and BTW your guy is a bit behind the times; NASA thought maybe there might be a minimum coming because of the long quiet after the last standard solar cycle minimum back in January, but solar activity has picked up to the point where there are between five and ten active regions on the side we can see alone (or were last week). Sorry, no, not gonna be a Maunder Minimum event any time soon.

[Diogenes]

[

I knew you were going to get a drug dig into your response. You simply can't help it.

Most people are born predisposed to addiction. They simply don't discover it until they acquire the addicting substance.

But most people are unaware of the facts so they are perfectly comfortable with a war on the traumatized.

I have put the above facts before you in the past.

Forgive me for saying so, but I don't regard the fact that you told me something as the equivalent of it being true or correct.

I regard your opinion on the topic to be heavily biased, so the only thing likely to be accepted at face value from you are admissions against interest.

Overall I'd say the left is more dangerous.

No kidding? Whatever gave you that idea? From the way you've been going on, I would think that you regarded a 100 million dead body pile as being not quite as serious of a problem as denying people the right to get stoned.

Yes. Leaving people alone has its dangers. A police state is not one of them.

And there we disagree. I argue that a police state is the EXACT OUTCOME of your ideas. An ungovernable society can only attract a police state. Anarchy is unstable and transitory with Strong Man governance always as the likely outcome.


What's more, I have an example in history at which I can point. China would never have acquired Mao but for legalized drugs.

The attitude "everything will be all right if WE control the power" enables the left. Much safer is to reduce the power to the minimum. Unless you like the EPA. And the rest. The Republicans of 1900 used to know this. Today? We have two big government parties. The main difference is what they intend to do with the power. The power itself is not in question. Pity.

That we have two parties, both of which want to control the government i'll grant you. I'll even go so far as to say that both parties enjoy EXPANDING the government, though one constantly claims otherwise.

Beyond that, there are rightful duties of government that are necessary for existence, and among them are the control and regulation of dangerous and known fatal substances.

[Schneibster]

The latest hot data from NASA:

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml



It's going to be slow, not a Maunder Minimum or anything even approaching it.

[MSimon]

Forgive me for saying so, but I don't regard the fact that you told me something as the equivalent of it being true or correct.

Of course not. But have you ever checked out Dr. Lonny Shavelson and his look at heroin addicts? He looked at a sample of 200 and found that 70% of the women and 50% of the men had been sexually molested in childhood. His first take as the results started coming in was on the order of, "This can't be true." So he dug deeper.

Heroin addiction is not caused by heroin. It is caused by trauma and genetics. More commonly known as PTSD. And by addiction I mean the inability to stay off heroin after detox.

Now if you don't want to look I don't blame you. It can be wrenching to change your mind about a government program so important to you. But some will look. And some of those will change their minds. I have been working to defeat Prohibition one mind at a time for 40 years. It is starting to have some effect.

[djolds1]

At this point, I rate the little ice age projections as more credible that the warming scare, and of much more serious impact if they come true.

Agreed. Global warming wouldn't reduce the habitable zone all that much (if any) , but mile thick ice in Kansas? Where are all those people above that latitude going to go?

The New Territories closer to the equator.

Aka war, conquest and forced depopulation.

[williatw]

At this point, I rate the little ice age projections as more credible that the warming scare, and of much more serious impact if they come true.

Agreed. Global warming wouldn't reduce the habitable zone all that much (if any) , but mile thick ice in Kansas? Where are all those people above that latitude going to go?

The New Territories closer to the equator.

Aka war, conquest and forced depopulation.

Nah...easier way to go would be climate engineering if we were faced with an ice age:

A gas used in manufacture of flat panel televisions, computer displays, microcircuits, and thin-film solar panels is 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and it is far more prevalent in the atmosphere than previously estimated.

The powerful greenhouse gas nitrogen trifluoride, NF3, is at least four times more widespread than scientists had believed, according to new research by a team at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2008 ... -24-01.asp

I understand that unlike excess CO2 it persists in the Atmosphere for along time...so you better be sure you don't make too much of it.




viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3466&hilit=super+gr ... e&start=45

[choff]

Regarding drugs, I've been reading literature to the effect that LSD is not a hallucinogen per se, but more a hypnotic drug. If you are told it will cause hallucinations, you will have hallucinations, if you are told it will make you think you can fly, you will jump off a building. If you think it will get you closer to god or give you deeper insights into who you are, that also happens. If you think it can get you off heroin, you will kick heroin from using LSD.