Comments on: A very good question

By: Pofarmer

Pofarmer — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:51:11 +0000

Just so ya know. Industrialized agriculture is going to fail pretty quickly if it really does cool as much as they some are predicting. It would take a wholesale shift to different kinds of crops to keep things going.

By: John A

John A — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:18:27 +0000

Chet,

Can you please send such a matching diagram to johna.sci AT googlemail.com ?

By: Chet

Chet — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 02:16:32 +0000

If you take the graphs of Cycle 22 & 23 sunspot activity and match them with the 2 cycles before the Dalton minimum you get a very disturbing match. Almost identical.

By: Gary Gulrud

Gary Gulrud — Wed, 14 May 2008 13:55:28 +0000

Re: Global Coldening

Any hope at this point for a SC24 SSN max above 75 is unalloyed fantasy. The smoothed 13 month average and 10.7 cm flux are still decreasing so the 24 min. is still months ahead which means the ram up to max will be comparatively slow.
The Janssens data clearly indicates SC24 is falling in as a regime change with SC25 a likely further diminution of activity.
Any global warming, post SC24 max, will be slight, lasting a few years at most (one El Nino), before declining again after 2020.
Deal with it; unless you are under 30, warming is an experience of your past.

By: leebert

leebert — Wed, 14 May 2008 05:03:23 +0000

It could just be that the net effective cooling will be enough to stabilize temperatures for a time. The seas and the Arctic would have to dump some acquired heat first before we hit a zero-trend.

I think NASA modeled the LIA and found that it took a few consecutive half-amplitude solar cycles before the chill really set it. If SC #25 is realistically predicted to be a half-amplitude dud, then we can surmise #26 & #27 will as well because it’s the nature of the beast.

I’m guessing that if SC #24 surprises & maxes out as a half-amplitude cycle then the onset of marked effects will occur by the 2020’s during SC #25. Likewise then if we have to wait for SC #25 for a first half-amplitude cycle then any negative solar effects won’t be felt until SC #26 in the 2030’s.

Either way we’ll be sure to waste lots of time worrying about it before then. And hopefully by then most of the world will be readied against crop failures through the widespread implementation of industrialized agriculture which was not available in the 17th C.

By: Pierre Gosselin

Pierre Gosselin — Tue, 06 May 2008 20:26:09 +0000

Pessimism is the mother of defeat - never allow yourself to succumb to it.

By: Pierre Gosselin

Pierre Gosselin — Tue, 06 May 2008 20:20:55 +0000

John A
Thanks for the reply - I’d like to believe you, really. Collapse didn’t stop the Soviets and its satellite countries from crashing, the stayed in denial for decades.
I really believe some cooling would wake up a lot of people from the sleep the warmth has put them in, and do some good. All the agricultural capacity we have added for bio-fuels could simply be shifted over to producing food. Much of this added capacity is located in fairly warm areas that would be minimally effected by a cold spell. Plus we have many new wonderful technologies that would enhance agricultural output.
I don’t see a cooler world pessimistically at all. We can deal with both. But you are right, if we get a little ice age or worse, then we may find ourselves struggling. That would not be pretty. And I agree that governments should be preparing for colder periods, and not wasting their time trying to mitigate something that isn’t going to happen.

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Tue, 06 May 2008 19:14:04 +0000

We can start reducing the CO2 release in the atmosphere

By: James Chamberlain

James Chamberlain — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:52:21 +0000

I think a warming climate is better for people in general also, but would love to see the zealots proved wrong by a cooling climate.

Regardless, we can do nothing about the direction it goes. We can just stand by and watch. That is becoming pretty obvious.

By: Magnus

Magnus — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:02:07 +0000

I think lots of societies will do far better with a sustained period of cooling than people in the 17th and 18th century did (if it will be a bad cooling). But if the envuironmentalist at the same time tries to prohibit the use of carbon fuel, then we — and espeacially the poor — will suffer unnecessary pain. (The best argument for reduction of oil consumption I know of is the decrease of the incomes the Muslim Brotherhood and such political elements will have.)