OT: forecast looks cold and snowy for 2030-2040...

[RU848789]

Solar physicists just published a paper strongly suggesting we're going to see a once in 370 year solar activity minimum (last seen in the "mini Ice Age" in 1645) in the 11-year sun cycle from 2030 through 2040, meaning that period would likely be colder and snowier than normal in many locations. They recently incorporated new physical observations of "dynamos" on the sun (which affect electromagnetic activity levels) into their solar energy models, increasing their retrospective analysis accuracy to 97%. We'll have to see if their prospective accuracy is as good, but if it is, prepare to shiver. Hope I'm around to see it and report on the record snowfall we could get, lol. As an aside, even if this plays out, it has zero to do with whether or not global warming is real or how bad it may or may not get.

http://www.reportingclimatescience....sts-predict-rapid-fall-in-solar-activity.html

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/12/scientists-predict-mini-ice-age-will-hit-in-15-years/21208356/

 

[DJ Spanky]

Damn global warming! Oh, wait...

I read about that earlier, however, as I understand it, the science and data behind it has not been peer reviewed yet.

 

[Scarlet Shack]

Gives us 15 years to get the retractable roof over HPSS

 

[RUhasarrived]

I've been visiting Robert Felix's iceagenow.info since 2002,so this is nothing new to me.(Maybe the fence won't have to be built after all)

 

[okieKnight]

Fwiw : http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...nt-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/

 

[RU848789]

Damn global warming! Oh, wait...

I read about that earlier, however, as I understand it, the science and data behind it has not been peer reviewed yet.

You are correct - it was presented at a conference, but hasn't been published yet. Having said that, though, it sounds like it's a fairly simple model (in so much as trying to predict the sun's future for the next 30 years should be simpler than trying to predict Earth's future for thousands of years) and even if they're wrong, the impact would be a lot less, compared to being wrong about global warming, as this is simply a short-term cyclical impact, not a long-term potentially permanent impact.

 

[RU848789]

Fwiw : http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...nt-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/

thanks, figured some people would take this and run with it with regard to what it may or may not mean with regard to global warming - hence my caveat at the end of my initial post...

 

[fg7321]

Are we going to plow the snow off the field for the game?

 

[PaKnight]

Winter is coming.

 

[anon_ivydyf0amkzay]

Get the football weather threads going now!!! ;)

 

[RUich]

Well, that will put me squarely in the mid 80's when it starts and I certainly will not be around to see it end. Kind of like getting a lifetime warranty on something and thinking it really isn't good for very long...:scream:

 

[RU in IM]

well it's safe to say that we will most likely commence a 10 contract against UVW starting in 2030.

 

[m1ipabrams]

Damn, I was planning on retiring about 2030 and spending the next 10 years on the beach somewhere. Apparently that somewhere is going to have to be pretty close to the equator.

 

[RCTrooper]

So you're saying that I should get seats on the sunny side instead of the shade side for our Aug 31, 2031 home game against FCS-power UConn?

 

[RUforester72]

Shoot. I'll be 80. Was hoping for some global warming to make my later years comfortable.

 

[Eagleton96]

"Though University of Northumbria mathematics professor Valentina Zharkova, who led the sunspot research, did find that the magnetic waves that produce sunspots (which are associated with high levels of solar activity) are expected to counteract one another in an unusual way in the coming years, the press release about her research mentions nothing about how that will affect the Earth’s climate. Zharkova never even used the phrase “mini ice age.” Meanwhile, several other recent studies of a possible solar minimum have concluded that whatever climate effects the phenomenon may have will be dwarfed by the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions."

The IPCC and main climate modelers already looked at this scenario and concluded that it would we will get very slightly less hotter.

 

[LBusDoor90]

"Though University of Northumbria mathematics professor Valentina Zharkova, who led the sunspot research, did find that the magnetic waves that produce sunspots (which are associated with high levels of solar activity) are expected to counteract one another in an unusual way in the coming years, the press release about her research mentions nothing about how that will affect the Earth’s climate. Zharkova never even used the phrase “mini ice age.” Meanwhile, several other recent studies of a possible solar minimum have concluded that whatever climate effects the phenomenon may have will be dwarfed by the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions."

The IPCC and main climate modelers already looked at this scenario and concluded that it would we will get very slightly less hotter.

Yes, the playbook of deniers has a very predictable pattern nowadays. Take a study that has a piece of predicted cooling that if exaggerated in a Newsbusters, Newsmax or Fox News piece, it will get the minions on the right to start shouting "yeah, what he said!" loudly and in large enough numbers to seem like truth. In the meantime, the actual scientific community (branded as tree-hugging, socialist enemy number one by the right which red states eat up) determines through further analysis and scientific method replication that any potential cooling from the solar minimum will be no greater than a drop of .3 deg C through about 2030, a tiny bite out of the predicted 2 deg C rise. But this of course can only be found in scientific journals and articles from publications that are sympathetic to concerns about climate change. In the end, most just read what confirms the bias they already possess, assuming the data and physical evidence proposed by the other side is concocted or cherry picked as both sides battle it out on message boards like this one or the comments section of the aforementioned.
To me, I think we would live in a much better world if scientists were trusted more than the politicians who tell us exactly what to think of their work.

It has dawned on me recently that both sides of the aisle have been working hard now for some time to dumb us all down so most need the interpretations of others when a little scary data and graphs start to appear. Until we all start reading and thinking for ourselves, we are f~€£ed.

 

[RUaMoose]

Yes, the playbook of deniers has a very predictable pattern nowadays. Take a study that has a piece of predicted cooling that if exaggerated in a Newsbusters, Newsmax or Fox News piece, it will get the minions on the right to start shouting "yeah, what he said!" loudly and in large enough numbers to seem like truth. In the meantime, the actual scientific community (branded as tree-hugging, socialist enemy number one by the right which red states eat up) determines through further analysis and scientific method replication that any potential cooling from the solar minimum will be no greater than a drop of .3 deg C through about 2030, a tiny bite out of the predicted 2 deg C rise. But this of course can only be found in scientific journals and articles from publications that are sympathetic to concerns about climate change. In the end, most just read what confirms the bias they already possess, assuming the data and physical evidence proposed by the other side is concocted or cherry picked as both sides battle it out on message boards like this one or the comments section of the aforementioned.
To me, I think we would live in a much better world if scientists were trusted more than the politicians who tell us exactly what to think of their work.

It has dawned on me recently that both sides of the aisle have been working hard now for some time to dumb us all down so most need the interpretations of others when a little scary data and graphs start to appear. Until we all start reading and thinking for ourselves, we are f~€£ed.

I stopped reading after "deniers". If you want to be taken seriously, perhaps you should consider dropping such sophomoric terms from your lexicon

 

[Knight_Light]

My prediction for 2050-2060 is:

Summer months will be warmer/hotter on some days/weeks while slightly cooler in others.

Winter months will have the most snowfall most years with cold, even wet cold days being plentiful while sprinkles of drier/warmer days than normal every now and then.

I also predict sunshine in the warmer months will provide longer daylight days vs those in the winter.

 

[LBusDoor90]

I stopped reading after "deniers". If you want to be taken seriously, perhaps you should consider dropping such sophomoric terms from your lexicon

My point was to use the labels both sides use for each other like deniers, tree huggers and socialists. But I guess that got by you.

 

[PhilaPhans]

Can we get today and tomorrow's forecast correct first, before moving 15 years into the future? Right now the only weather forecast I can trust is my window.

 

[mdk01]

Yes, the playbook of deniers has a very predictable pattern nowadays. Take a study that has a piece of predicted cooling that if exaggerated in a Newsbusters, Newsmax or Fox News piece, it will get the minions on the right to start shouting "yeah, what he said!" loudly and in large enough numbers to seem like truth. In the meantime, the actual scientific community (branded as tree-hugging, socialist enemy number one by the right which red states eat up) determines through further analysis and scientific method replication that any potential cooling from the solar minimum will be no greater than a drop of .3 deg C through about 2030, a tiny bite out of the predicted 2 deg C rise. But this of course can only be found in scientific journals and articles from publications that are sympathetic to concerns about climate change. In the end, most just read what confirms the bias they already possess, assuming the data and physical evidence proposed by the other side is concocted or cherry picked as both sides battle it out on message boards like this one or the comments section of the aforementioned.
To me, I think we would live in a much better world if scientists were trusted more than the politicians who tell us exactly what to think of their work.

It has dawned on me recently that both sides of the aisle have been working hard now for some time to dumb us all down so most need the interpretations of others when a little scary data and graphs start to appear. Until we all start reading and thinking for ourselves, we are f~€£ed.

Didn't see any references in the WaPo article to Newsbusters, Newsmax or Fox. I did see links to the Huffington Post, the Weather Channel, AOL and the Daily Mail. So who's stirring up the minions on the right?

 

[CornerTavern]

well that's fine I guess, we can replenish the polar icecaps.

however, that will be bad for agriculture across the board. we'll have to move the corn belt down a state or two into the sun belt.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

Do you think the Rutgers Men's Basketball team will win a national championship by 2060?

 

[RU1977]

As long as it isn't going to explode......

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

As long as it isn't going to explode......

Don't worry if that happens you will just die.

 

[RUPete]

Very depressing thread. Staring at mortality and a string of cold and snowy winters all rolled into one.

 

[LBusDoor90]

Didn't see any references in the WaPo article to Newsbusters, Newsmax or Fox. I did see links to the Huffington Post, the Weather Channel, AOL and the Daily Mail. So who's stirring up the minions on the right?

From my first post: "But this of course can only be found in scientific journals and articles from publications that are sympathetic to concerns about climate change....."

Did I really need to provide formal name s of all alarmist and denier publications to make my point that they are both filled with biased perspectives so that we all need to read and evaluate the science independently? Holy crap, folks.

I was just throwing out well known media from the right. Feel free to Google "climate change newsmax" and you'll have many pages of links to enjoy. I sure hope you aren't counting this thread as some all inclusive resource of links from the right and left (though I'm pretty sure I saw the Guardian included somewhere).

The Weather Channel and AOL are now on the left? Holy paranoia.

Learn how to read the scientific journals yourselves without anyone's agenda-based filter and we all will have a shot at truly understanding what's going on and what has to be done or not done.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

I blame all the people who use helium balloons for parties. All that helium escapes the atmosphere and heads straight for the sun... damn balloons!

 

[mikershoein]

ok, thanks for the update. I better get to shoprite for milk and eggs

 

[BeKnighted]

Winter is coming.

Best post on the thread. (No matter what you think the science says.)

 

[DJ Spanky]

ok, thanks for the update. I better get to shoprite for milk and eggs

And don't forget the bread so you can make french toast!

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

And don't forget the bread so you can make french toast!

I hear you can get great deals on expiring Y2K emergency rations... including dehydrated lobro!

 

[NewJerseyGuy]

I blame all the people who use helium balloons for parties. All that helium escapes the atmosphere and heads straight for the sun... damn balloons!

Well I blame carbonated beverages. Hey I've got a pretty big carbon footprint -- most of it due to diet dr. Pepper. I am afraid I'm going to owe the third world a lot of money someday -- of course Al Gore will get his cut as well.

 

[RUforester72]

Good post. Scientists who put their political agenda before good science have poisoned the well for all of us. Add to that the garbage that passes for journalism on the Internet and you have a public that is confused and wary at best.

 

[bac2therac]

the models and mets have trouble predicting one day in advance...cue RU#s coming into defend them

 

[RUhasarrived]

They can't even tell from which direction the wind will be blowing at Wrigley Field the next day.(That's why there's no over-under posted until 10 AM on game day,the only such field for which they've found it necessary to adopt this measure)