Winter is coming

[ddstory]

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

"We are now able to predict solar cycles with far greater accuracy than ever before thanks to a new model which shows irregularities in the sun’s 11-year heartbeat. The model shows that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent between 2030 and 2040 causing a "mini ice

Comments

[peristaltor]

I smell a big fat rat. The first link is so ad-heavy it smells very little of journalism and far more of someone Pushing An Agenda.

Why do I think this? It's amazing how many stories on Maunder Minimums and other solar phenomena are pushed through the corporate press, while other research barely receives a whisper. An example, for your purview. Albert Bates gives a summary:

What Ruddiman grasped is that the climate response to the hand of man is far more sensitive than had previously been imagined. Every plague and pestilence in history allowed forests to re-emerge-by bring populations low, fallowing farms, and decreasing burning of peat, coal, and wood. The longer and deeper the plague, the more time the climate had to recover

[ddstory]

That's an interesting aspect of the issue. Just one thing. The Little Ice Age largely happened in the 17th century, with the first cold interval starting in the 1650s, the second about 1770 and the last in 1850. If I'm reading this correctly, the argument you're citing draws a correlation between the extermination of the Indigenous population of the Americas during the conquest of the Americas (starting in the 1500s), and the possibility that the Little Ice Age was man-made.

My question is, even if it wasn't close to 1 billion, what part of the population of the Americas was exterminated or died of diseases between 1500 and 1650, and was it significant enough to trigger a massive reforestation by the end of that interval, along with giving the relevant effects on climate enough time to kick in?

As for The Independent, it is a corporate media, yes. Like most mainstream media. I'm not sure which of their articles you've come across over the years, to remain with the impression that they've largely been ignoring the argument about man-

[peristaltor]

The Little Ice Age largely happened in the 17th century, with the first cold interval starting in the 1650s, the second about 1770 and the last in 1850.

That's my understanding as well.

If I'm reading this correctly, the argument you're citing draws a correlation between the extermination of the Indigenous population of the Americas during the conquest of the Americas (starting in the 1500s), and the possibility that the Little Ice Age was man-made.Well, "man-made" is a bit strong, but yes. Man didn't "make" the climate. Man merely was, and humanity's activities had knock-on consequences. The more people there were, the more direct knock-on consequences there were. The same is happening today. The only difference is that we are starting to understand some of these knock-on consequences

[ddstory]

OK, let's not snatch a word out of the whole conversation and divert the attention to its semantic use in this case. You do know what is being meant by "man-made". It's just a convenient combination of two words that's usually being used in popular culture to denote the myriad of anthropogenic factors on climate. That's as far as I'm willing to dig into semantics.

My question is, were "enough" humans (sounds terrible) knocked off within such a short period of time, especially at the beginning of the conquest of the Americas, when factors like disease and violent extermination may've still not had enough time to kick in in full force? We're talking 17th century here, after all. Did such a huge number of Indigenous people suddenly disappear from the face of Earth even at early stages of conquest, to trigger a sudden massive reforestation, and lead to the purported effect on global climate

[dexeron]

Phil Plait did a piece on this a few years back. The upshot is: while we might be approaching a "solar minimum" akin to the old Maunder Minimum, there are three things to note

[sandwichwarrior]

Well it probably is a hoax (or at least bunk) but this is not "proof" by any means. ;)

[dexeron]

I might regret asking this:

But what is the difference between a "hoax" and "bunk," and how does either possibility jibe with the consensus of qualified scientists?

[sandwichwarrior]

A hoax is intentionally perpetrated where as bunk is simply the result of bad or incomplete data and worse methodology. Appeals to consensus being a prime example of shitty methodology.

ETA:
If you need to come up with complex reasons (tropospheric entrapment, oceanic sequestration, urban heat islands, etc...) to explain discrepancies between modeled behavior and observed maybe you should consider the possibility that the models themselves are at fault.

[sandwichwarrior]

I eagerly await deluge of comments crying "The Science is Settled" and "Burn the Heretic Denier!" ;)

[peristaltor]

Speaking of deluge, can't we have those who excessively deny the climate science simply live in their Miami beach houses for the next few decades? ;-)

[sandwichwarrior]

I'd be fine with that, I'd even buy stock in a Levee construction co. ;)

[ddstory]

Dailyquote.

[policraticus]

Why do I feel like I am 13 again?

[sandwichwarrior]

Because everything old is new again.

How much you want to bet that the political solutions to the coming ice-age will be identical to the previously coming warm-age and the "population bomb" before that?

[policraticus]

It's never about the problem; the solutions are an end in themselves.

[sandwichwarrior]

Ends exist to justify the means ;)

[cindyanne1]

Well I really hope it doesn't happen. It would be awful hard to make a living farming in an Ice Age. :(

[mikeyxw]

Then there's the part that's really too terrible to even contemplate... We're all going to end up adopting a Scandinavian diet.

[mikeyxw]

Then there's the part that's really too terrible to even contemplate... We're all going to end up adopting a Scandinavian diet.

[ddstory]

Why, what's so bad about lutefisk?

(Recalls the last time eating lutefisk...)

Ugh! You're right!