• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Climate Change Thread

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Okay, my question is what exactly are you advocating the government do? Because otherwise, you're in the boat with those of us saying to let the market handle it. So let's go bit by bit here:

1) R&D -- I get that you want the government to spend more money on this. I happen to agree with MalTalm that the most productive research is going to be occurring in the private sector, and that more government expenditures will yield diminishing returns, but at least I get what you want to there.

2) "Product development". What does this actually mean in terms of what you want the government to do, as opposed to the private firms operating in the market developing the products they make?

3) "infrastructure". Again, what exactly are you advocating here? Gas stations were privately built, financed, and owned. Power plants generally were built with private money as well. There's also to issue of large scale tooling, etc. And even on the personal level, installing solar panels, geothermal, or whatever costs a lot of up front money. So exactly what do you propose the government do about that?

4) Standards...again, are you talking about a government mandate here, or what?

I don't have specifics because Step 1 is to get experts across industries together and create a comprehensive framework of what needs to be done.

I do have some pieces and examples, though.

A clear example of how government intervention can help while simultaneously leveraging capitalism is the development of hybrid cars. Government tax credits helped on the purchase of the initial cars helped bootstrap the industry because it helped guarantee the companies who spent the R&D money needed to develop the cars would have a viable market for the finished product.

Hybrid cars effectively are making the gasoline more efficient by reclaiming energy that was being wasted. Developing hybrid cars themselves has helped move forward the technology for cars that operate on electricity to the point that manufactures are eliminating the gas engine all together.

Yes, the gas station required for powered cars was privately built. But it has evolved over a century. We now have a chicken and egg issue adopting alternatives like electric and hydrogen fuel cell based cars where we need charging stations or hydrogen pumps.

This is a place where the government could step in with incentives to help get the initial wave installed so there is enough infrastructure to bootstrap the adoption of these alternative technologies. People are going to be significantly more likely to buy an electric car for the daily commute if they know they can also use it when they travel. We could shave years off of the adoption time if we make that issue go away.
 
Back in 2007, Al Gore said the climate models indicated that the ice cap would be gone during the summer months in 5-7 years. I said bullshit, he's just being an alarmist. Who was right? Me or the soon to be first carbon billionaire who has a carbon footprint equal to that of a small city? :cool:

Does man impact the climate? Sure, i don't think anyone would deny that. The issue is - how much of an impact is man having on climate change...i have no clue...i dont think there's a consensus on how much of an impact either. So I'm not for bankrupting industries and crippling the economy. Technology will find a way and it wont take long...it's accelerating at a geometric rate. The singularity is near, most of what we consider problems won't be problems any more. We will have unlimited free energy in the next decade or two.

You are going to use Al Gore being wrong on one issue to discredit all of the actual science from the actual scientists?

Climate change is only one of the issues. The poison we're putting in the air burning fossil fuels is killing us. China is accelerating their adoption of solar because all of the coal they are burning is damaging their health and significantly lowering their lifespans.

And yes, unlimited relatively free energy is certainly a goal. If that is within reach, what's wrong with investing some monty up front to speeding the process along a bit. That's certainly a net win irregardless to the climate/health issues. When something is progressing geometrically, investment on the front end to speed things along has geometric payoffs on the back end.

If we're going to get to effectively free energy within a decade or two as you said, doesn't it make a ton of sense to plan ahead of how to best utilize that free energy. Do we want the overwhelming majority or our cars to still depend on burning gasoline and polluting the environment if we have excessive relatively free power?

What industries are we going to bankrupt and how is the economy going to be damaged?
 
What if the old models just weren't good, and we're getting better, and the difference is just improvement in more accurate data?
 
That Crichton statement makes no sense. It's a dumb play on Thomas Kuhn's: the structure of scientific revolutions. Essentially the problem with Crichton's take is that yes scientific revolutions can occur by individuals breaking new ground by showing empirical data that can't fit the established models. With climate science as more data has come in and the modeling improves it actually FITS well with global warming is occurring at an alarming rate due to CO2 elevations.

I mean you have skeptical non climate scientists who get a ton of money to "prove" global warming is wrong and then they come around and say the consensus is right:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

Exxon itself buried it's own findings: surprise surpise Big Tobacco turns out to be very similar to Big Oil when it comes to consensus building:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

This idea of consensus is somehow proof positive that the consensus is wrong is a play right out of Big Tobacco trying to deny "consensus" that smoking causes cancer. After all since no one wanted to do a randomized control trial with cancer and smoking the epidemiological data could not definitely show causality and animal studies don't really prove anything in humans. It's no surprising that scientists who worked for Tobacco just went and trained their sights on global warming for fossil fuel compaines:
http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/index.html
 
Last edited:
I don't have specifics because Step 1 is to get experts across industries together and create a comprehensive framework of what needs to be done.

I do have some pieces and examples, though.

A clear example of how government intervention can help while simultaneously leveraging capitalism is the development of hybrid cars. Government tax credits helped on the purchase of the initial cars helped bootstrap the industry because it helped guarantee the companies who spent the R&D money needed to develop the cars would have a viable market for the finished product.

Hybrid cars effectively are making the gasoline more efficient by reclaiming energy that was being wasted. Developing hybrid cars themselves has helped move forward the technology for cars that operate on electricity to the point that manufactures are eliminating the gas engine all together.

Yes, the gas station required for powered cars was privately built. But it has evolved over a century. We now have a chicken and egg issue adopting alternatives like electric and hydrogen fuel cell based cars where we need charging stations or hydrogen pumps.

This is a place where the government could step in with incentives to help get the initial wave installed so there is enough infrastructure to bootstrap the adoption of these alternative technologies. People are going to be significantly more likely to buy an electric car for the daily commute if they know they can also use it when they travel. We could shave years off of the adoption time if we make that issue go away.

Thanks, and here's why I asked -

I think the R&D happens in the private sector regardless of whether they sell some heavily subsidized private vehicles or not. If you want to subsidize that with some partial tax credits (NOT grants) fine, though I think it unnecesssary and wasteful.

But in any case, what you advocate here goes well beyond just R&DD. You want subsidies for the actual purchase of vehicles, and especially for the creation of nationwide charging stations, right? And presumably, your panel of experts would recommend a bunch of other government actions as well.

You also have to add into the equation that we have generate all that extra electricity to power those electric cars. And because you don't want to generate it with fossil fuels, you're going to have to spend shitloads of money to force-feed and accelerate the building of alternative fuel power plants. That is another huge challenge especially when you consider that large scale solar production is going to become progressively more expensive/less feasible as you try to expand into less ideal locations/climes.

The punch line is that other than the R&D, none of that stuff transfers overseas to other nations. U.S. government subsidies to build here in the U.S. charging stations, power generation facilities, and all the other stuff your panel of experts recommends will not increase the adoption of electric cars in other nations like China or India. In fact, a drop in petroleum consumption here in the U.S. decreases worldwide demand for petroleum, thus making it cheaper for other nations than it would otherwise be. That will actually slow down their own conversions.

We'd be spending those huge amounts of money to accomplish very little in terms of deducting global CO2 emissions. All we'd really accomplish in that regard is to pay ourselves on the back for an extremely expensive symbolic gesture.
 
Last edited:
What if the old models just weren't good, and we're getting better, and the difference is just improvement in more accurate data?

And what if (not much of an "if" about it given the track record) the new models also are wrong? What's concerning to me is that the models consistently err on the side of overestimation. That shouldn't happen if it was just a case of refining a fundamentally sound model.

That leads me to believe something fundamental is being missed - some significant variable or variables for which they are unable to account. And I think we have the right to expect better before taking steps that will massively disrupt our economy.

I'm not saying that the planet isn't warming, or that man isn't contributing at all. I'm saying that there is something significantly screwy in the models that calculate the magnitude of that effect.
 
Thanks, and here's why I asked -

I think the R&D happens in the private sector regardless of whether they sell some heavily subsidized private vehicles or not. If you want to subsidize that with some partial tax credits (NOT grants) fine, though I think it unnecesssary and wasteful.

But in any case, what you advocate here goes well beyond just R&DD. You want subsidies for the actual purchase of vehicles, and especially for the creation of nationwide charging stations, right? And presumably, your panel of experts would recommend a bunch of other government actions as well.

You also have to add into the equation that we have generate all that extra electricity to power those electric cars. And because you don't want to generate it with fossil fuels, you're going to have to spend shitloads of money to force-feed and accelerate the building of alternative fuel power plants. That is another huge challenge especially when you consider that large scale solar production is going to become progressively more expensive/less feasible as you try to expand into less ideal locations/climes.

The punch line is that other than the R&D, none of that stuff transfers overseas to other nations. U.S. government subsidies to build charging stations, power generation facilities, and all the other stuff your panel of experts recommends here in the U.S. will not increase the adoption of electric cars in other nations like China or India. In fact, a drop in petroleum consumption here in the U.S. decreases worldwide demand for petroleum, thus making it cheaper for other nations than it would otherwise be. That will actually slow down their own conversions.

We'd be spending those huge amounts of money to accomplish very little in terms of deducting global CO2 emissions. All we'd really accomplish in that regard is to pay ourselves on the back for an extremely expensive symbolic gesture.


Just a quick Kibitz.. government funding of solar power plants, electric cars, and other hardware, does find its way to the lowest cost manufacturing sectors, AKA china and india. Today, in the Valley, most startups base the business model on a chinese supply chain.

In a broader sense, R&D used to be funded by corporate giants like Dupont and GE for example, but modern conglomerates like P&G outsource the bulk of it. Also, more than occassionally, R&D is designed to serve the company's best interest which can be at odds with national interests and can even be infulenced by foriegn governments who have no legal (or ethical) prohibitions against that.

I think there is logic in government funding of alternate energy sources and also in energy efficiency improvement. from a global strategy perspective, substituting wind or solar for oil based fuel, even if it is only a few percent, dramatically reduces the price of oil, and saves americans billions, while reducing the revenue of many of our enemies by the same.

In my view, this kind of funding should be organized to attract venture capital rather than given to some crony of a senator, which is how you get Solendra and such. Better would be to award large prizes for any group achieving anparticular goal. For example, a ten million dollar prize for an electric vehicle, with a 70 mph top speed, a 300 mile range and a 10,000 dollar cost ( material and us based labor..). I also think there is logic in subsidizing the contruction of alternate fuel "filling" stations in areas where the private sector might not make sense, similar to the rural electric power programs of the past..

JMHO
 
Just a quick Kibitz.. government funding of solar power plants, electric cars, and other hardware, does find its way to the lowest cost manufacturing sectors, AKA china and india.

Right. They're certainly willing to build stuff for which we pay them. That's just making profits.

But that's a completely different issue from their governments being willing to spend huge amounts of their own money on converting away from fossil fuels.

Of course, if we're going to have our panels, etc., built in China or India because they are the cheapest manufacturer, that's not only a government expenditure (tax break/credit) for us, but it's one where we'd be outsourcing jobs as well.

My personal views on this line up pretty well with @MalTalm . I think we'll see more electric cars in certain areas - particularly more urban ones where speed and proximity to charging stations will be less of a problem. They may make economic sense there. But I think trying to force-feed it into more rural areas would be a colossal waste of resources.
 
You are going to use Al Gore being wrong on one issue to discredit all of the actual science from the actual scientists?

I thought my smirking smiley face guy with the sunglasses would've given away that i was being somewhat of a smart ass. On a more serious note, it wasn't just Al Gore, he was quoting the climate models and many of the consensus...and they ended up being wrong. My point is, you keep claiming this is a meteor hurtling at us...i personally just don't think it's nearly as bad as you, Al and the climate models claim it is.


If that is within reach, what's wrong with investing some monty up front to speeding the process along a bit.

But, they shouldn't attempt to cripple other industries in the process. Especially at a time when we need to be creating jobs. Obama crushed the coal industry and hamstrung the oil industry. He also picked a bunch of dogs in his role as venture capitalist...

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies...and the amount of OUR money Obama gifted them:
1.Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2.SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3.Solyndra ($535 million)*
4.Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5.Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6.SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7.First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8.Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9.EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10.Amonix ($5.9 million)
11.Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12.Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13.A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14.Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15.Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16.Schneider Electric ($86 million)
17.Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
18.ECOtality ($126.2 million)
19.Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
20.Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
21.Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
22.Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
23.Range Fuels ($80 million)*
24.Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
25.Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
26.Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
27.GreenVolts ($500,000)
28.Vestas ($50 million)
29.LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
30.Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
31.Navistar ($39 million)
32.Satcon ($3 million)*
33.Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
34.Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy in 2012.

The problem begins with the issue of government picking winners and losers in the first place. Venture capitalist firms exist for this very reason, and they choose what to invest in by looking at companies’ business models and deciding if they are worthy. When the government plays venture capitalist, it tends to reward companies that are connected to the policymakers themselves or because it sounds nice to “invest” in green energy.

If we're going to get to effectively free energy within a decade or two as you said, doesn't it make a ton of sense to plan ahead of how to best utilize that free energy.

I guess my problem would be that i have no idea what that free source will be. Gour says we need to throw a trillion at solar. What if fusion is the free energy source? I guess my point is, let's see how it plays out for a bit instead of wildly throwing around billions or trillions we don't have. I'm not opposed to investing in alternative energy, but let's be smart about it.
 
Oh shit...now what?


GLOBAL COOLING: Decade long ice age predicted as sun 'hibernates'
SCIENTISTS claim we are in for a decade-long freeze as the sun slows down solar activity by up to 60 per cent.
By JON AUSTIN
PUBLISHED: 03:07, Thu, Nov 5, 2015 | UPDATED: 08:26, Thu, Nov 5, 2015
fb.png

tw.png

g.png

m.png

sh.png

22K
c.png

249
Ice-Age-616937.jpg
GETTY

The big freeze could last a decade as sun goes to sleep
A team of European researchers have unveiled a scientific model showing that the Earth is likely to experience a “mini ice age” from 2030 to 2040 as a result of decreased solar activity.

Their findings will infuriate environmental campaigners who argue by 2030 we could be facing increased sea levels and flooding due to glacial melt at the poles.

However, at the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales, Northumbria University professor Valentina Zharkova said fluctuations an 11-year cycle of solar activity the sun goes through would be responsible for a freeze, the like of which has not been experienced since the 1600s.

From 1645 to 1715 global temperatures dropped due to low solar activity so much that the planet experienced a 70-year ice age known as Maunder Minimum which saw the River Thames in London completely frozen.

The researchers have now developed a "double dynamo" model that can better predict when the next freeze will be.

Based on current cycles, they predict solar activity dwindling for ten years from 2030.

Professor Zharkova said two magnetic waves will cancel each other out in about 2030, leading to a drop in sun spots and solar flares of about 60 per cent.

Sunspots are dark concentrations of magnetic field flux on the surface that reduce surface temperature in that area, while solar flares are burst of radiation and solar energy that fire out across the solar system, but the Earth's atmosphere protects us from the otherwise devastating effects.

She said: "In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other, peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun.

"We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum'.

“Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the Sun’s northern and southern hemispheres. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 per cent."

Research colleagues Simon Shepherd of Bradford University, Helen Popova of Lomonosov Moscow State University and Sergei Zarkhov of the University of Hull used magnetic field observations from 1976 to 2008 at the Wilcox Solar Observatory at Stanford University.

A Royal Astronomical Society spokesman said: "It is 172 years since a scientist first spotted that the Sun’s activity varies over a cycle lasting around 10 to 12 years.

Ice-5-382336.jpg
GETTY

Could you handle ten years of winter?
"But every cycle is a little different and none of the models of causes to date have fully explained fluctuations."

The “double dynamo” theory appears to support claims of researchers who argue Earth will soon experience major global cooling due to lower solar activity as the sun goes into a sustained period of hibernation.

Environmentalists meanwhile claim global temperatures will increase over the period unless we drastically reduce carbon emissions.
 
A complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies...and the amount of OUR money Obama gifted them:
1.Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2.SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3.Solyndra ($535 million)*
4.Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5.Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6.SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7.First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8.Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9.EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10.Amonix ($5.9 million)
11.Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12.Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13.A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14.Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15.Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16.Schneider Electric ($86 million)
17.Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
18.ECOtality ($126.2 million)
19.Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
20.Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
21.Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
22.Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
23.Range Fuels ($80 million)*
24.Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
25.Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
26.Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
27.GreenVolts ($500,000)
28.Vestas ($50 million)
29.LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
30.Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
31.Navistar ($39 million)
32.Satcon ($3 million)*
33.Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
34.Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy in 2012.

That's why I hate loan guarantees and grants. Both are incentives to pursue shitty ideas because the free money keeps the people running the company employed. And if they go bankrupt and default on the taxpayer-backed loan...hey, not their problem anymore, right? They already got paid.

The most I support are partial tax credits for R&D. It's got to be partial to ensure the company still has its own skin in the game, and won't keep on pursuing bad ideas just to keep the government gravy train running.

The problem begins with the issue of government picking winners and losers in the first place. Venture capitalist firms exist for this very reason, and they choose what to invest in by looking at companies’ business models and deciding if they are worthy. When the government plays venture capitalist, it tends to reward companies that are connected to the policymakers themselves or because it sounds nice to “invest” in green energy.

Bingo. And whole thing about supposedly bipartisan commissions or "blue-ribbon" panels taking the politics out of it is bullshit. Even if you take government politics out of it, you still have the interpersonal politics of panel/commission members funnelling money that isn't theirs to their buddies.

An across the board partial R&D tax credit for which anyone can apply doesn't distort incentives between different alternative technologies, eliminates favoritism, and doesn't encourage pursuit of crappy ideas just because you can get a grant or loan guarantee.

The whole "fad of the moment" approach, coupled with the pernicious effects of politics, leads to shit like the corn ethanol subsidies, which the Administration apparently wants to revive/increase.
 
Last edited:
But, no one said that...

Of course not, instead we have the the endless little seeds of doubt strategy

paraphrasing Crichton and common themes:
"consensus is dangerous"
"No one is saying humans don't impact climate but Al Gore is a hypocritical fatty"
"Sure CO2 may cause global warming but it was really cold in Chicago last year"
"A global warming skeptic is the true scientist and hero because they lie to get grants." < please ignore my speaking fees payed by the Heartland Institute and Exxon >

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies...and the amount of OUR money Obama gifted them:
1.Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2.SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3.Solyndra ($535 million)*
4.Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5.Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6.SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7.First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8.Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9.EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10.Amonix ($5.9 million)
11.Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12.Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13.A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14.Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15.Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16.Schneider Electric ($86 million)
17.Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
18.ECOtality ($126.2 million)
19.Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
20.Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
21.Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
22.Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
23.Range Fuels ($80 million)*
24.Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
25.Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
26.Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
27.GreenVolts ($500,000)
28.Vestas ($50 million)
29.LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
30.Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
31.Navistar ($39 million)
32.Satcon ($3 million)*
33.Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
34.Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

.

What one would think this was like F-35 which is going to cost in half a trillion range. Yet we don't hear a pipe about this from conservatives when program like green energy will actually have positive externalities on top of fixed capital costs. (nevermind that these programs have made money)
The U.S. government expects to earn $5 billion to $6 billion from the renewable-energy loan program that funded flops including Solyndra LLC, supporting President Barack Obama’s decision to back low-carbon technologies.

The Department of Energy has disbursed about half of $32.4 billion allocated to spur innovation, and the expected return will be detailed in a report due to be released as soon as tomorrow, according to an official who helped put together the data.

The results contradict the widely held view that the U.S. has wasted taxpayer money funding failures including Solyndra, which closed its doors in 2011 after receiving $528 million in government backing. That adds to Obama’s credibility as he seeks to make climate change a bigger priority after announcing a historic emissions deal with China

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-5-billion-from-program-that-funded-solyndra
 
Last edited:
The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies...and the amount of OUR money Obama gifted them:

Some combination of tax credits for spending money on R&D and tax credits to purchasers of the products created with that R&D is better than up front funding. Make the companies actually create and deliver products to get their money.

I guess my problem would be that i have no idea what that free source will be. Gour says we need to throw a trillion at solar. What if fusion is the free energy source? I guess my point is, let's see how it plays out for a bit instead of wildly throwing around billions or trillions we don't have. I'm not opposed to investing in alternative energy, but let's be smart about it.

The source of the alternative energy is really irrelevant when talking about the issue of switching the cars we drive (or that self drive themselves in a few years) off of gasoline as their primary fuel source.
 
Oh shit...now what?


GLOBAL COOLING: Decade long ice age predicted as sun 'hibernates'
SCIENTISTS claim we are in for a decade-long freeze as the sun slows down solar activity by up to 60 per cent.
By JON AUSTIN
PUBLISHED: 03:07, Thu, Nov 5, 2015 | UPDATED: 08:26, Thu, Nov 5, 2015
fb.png

tw.png

g.png

m.png

sh.png

22K
c.png

249
Ice-Age-616937.jpg
GETTY

The big freeze could last a decade as sun goes to sleep
A team of European researchers have unveiled a scientific model showing that the Earth is likely to experience a “mini ice age” from 2030 to 2040 as a result of decreased solar activity.

Their findings will infuriate environmental campaigners who argue by 2030 we could be facing increased sea levels and flooding due to glacial melt at the poles.

However, at the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales, Northumbria University professor Valentina Zharkova said fluctuations an 11-year cycle of solar activity the sun goes through would be responsible for a freeze, the like of which has not been experienced since the 1600s.

From 1645 to 1715 global temperatures dropped due to low solar activity so much that the planet experienced a 70-year ice age known as Maunder Minimum which saw the River Thames in London completely frozen.

The researchers have now developed a "double dynamo" model that can better predict when the next freeze will be.

Based on current cycles, they predict solar activity dwindling for ten years from 2030.

Professor Zharkova said two magnetic waves will cancel each other out in about 2030, leading to a drop in sun spots and solar flares of about 60 per cent.

Sunspots are dark concentrations of magnetic field flux on the surface that reduce surface temperature in that area, while solar flares are burst of radiation and solar energy that fire out across the solar system, but the Earth's atmosphere protects us from the otherwise devastating effects.

She said: "In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other, peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun.

"We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum'.

“Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the Sun’s northern and southern hemispheres. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 per cent."

Research colleagues Simon Shepherd of Bradford University, Helen Popova of Lomonosov Moscow State University and Sergei Zarkhov of the University of Hull used magnetic field observations from 1976 to 2008 at the Wilcox Solar Observatory at Stanford University.

Again classic misinformer strategy. This why every newspaper make grandiose claim about the latest nutritional finding because its REPORTERs trying to get eyeballs

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.

Besides, that “Little Ice Age” that occurred during the Maunder minimum, it wasn’t so much a global ice age as a cold spell in Europe, and it may have been caused more by clouds of ash from volcanic eruptions than by fluctuations in solar activity.

(It’s also worth mentioning that Zharkova’s findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, so her conclusions haven’t been vetted and refined.)

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

A little seed of doubt here a little seed of doubt here. No matter if the article accurately represents the presentation or the context.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top