
Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade - Jach
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/
======
hugh3
This is exactly why I think the debate should be less about "how can we as
humans stop affecting Earth's natual climate" and "how can we as humans gain
control over Earth's natural climate".

Climate change happens with us or without us. If we're going to protect our
huge investments in climate-dependent infrastructure (i.e. cities) then we're
gonna want (say) giant space mirrors to compensate for any zany things that
nature might throw at us.

The political problem of who gets to control the Earth's thermostat is, of
course, a tricky one.

~~~
run4yourlives
It's probably easier to just colonize other planets than it is to go farting
around with something as delicate as Earth's climate.

~~~
nathanb
Wouldn't this then require us to "fart around" with the climate of the planets
we colonize to make them more like Earth's?

~~~
run4yourlives
The difference being that there is nobody living on a planet like say, Mars.

Last I checked, there are a whole bunch of people with nowhere else to go on
Earth as it stands.

~~~
cryptoz
> The difference being that there is nobody living on a planet like say, Mars.

Stop right there. You don't know that there isn't anyone living there. We've
sent a couple rovers, dug down a few inches, and looked at it from telescopes.
There are millions of dollars poured into the search for life on Mars every
year, as there should be. But we don't know very much yet!

I am totally in favour of terraforming and colonizing Mars if we can
(reasonably) prove that nothing is alive there. But we aren't anywhere near
that point. The greatest crime the human race could ever commit would be the
annihilation of the (perhaps only?) living ETs found, even if by "accident" as
we moved in there.

Don't think that Mars is your dead playground for you to do as you wish. Treat
it and its unknown past with deep respect. There's a small chance that
something, somewhere, is living there, perhaps under the surface, perhaps in
caves.

Don't assume we know everything about other planets just 'cause we can see
them with our telescopes.

~~~
lupatus
I am in favor of doing with Mars as we wish. When Western Civilization had
"first contact" with various "alien"[1] native societies around the world,
most of the impact flowed from civilization to the "aliens". Civilization
continued on and most of the alien societies became footnotes in history.
Might makes right, and unless the Martian bacteria are crafting starships in
their caves, I think we should take samples for scientific study and then open
Mars to homesteaders. The Martian lifeforms have had just as long to do
something productive with Mars as we have had with Earth. It is not our fault
if they are still just bacteria.

[1] Meaning literally foreign.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
This is our legacy. It's sad in a way, but that lament is the luxury of the
victorious.

------
scarmig
The Maunder minimum argument has been around awhile. A useful counterbalance
from NASA 2008:

<http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/>

\--------------------------

"Solar irradiance: The solar output remains low (Fig. 4), at the lowest level
in the period since satellite measurements began in the late 1970s, and the
time since the prior solar minimum is already 12 years, two years longer than
the prior two cycles. This has led some people to speculate that we may be
entering a "Maunder Minimum" situation, a period of reduced irradiance that
could last for decades. Most solar physicists expect the irradiance to begin
to pick up in the next several months — there are indications, from the
polarity of the few recent sunspots, that the new cycle is beginning.

However, let's assume that the solar irradiance does not recover. In that
case, the negative forcing, relative to the mean solar irradiance is
equivalent to seven years of CO2 increase at current growth rates. So do not
look for a new "Little Ice Age" in any case. Assuming that the solar
irradiance begins to recover this year, as expected, there is still some
effect on the likelihood of a near-term global temperature record due to the
unusually prolonged solar minimum. Because of the large thermal inertia of the
ocean, the surface temperature response to the 10-12 year solar cycle lags the
irradiance variation by 1-2 years. Thus, relative to the mean, i.e, the
hypothetical case in which the sun had a constant average irradiance, actual
solar irradiance will continue to provide a negative anomaly for the next 2-3
years."

\--------------------------

That said, if a Maunder minimum does somehow manage to give us a couple extra
decades to get our house in order (before the subsequent recovery of solar
activity), that's a godsend. Let's hope it pans out.

~~~
gjm11
> if a Maunder minimum does somehow manage to give us a couple extra decades
> [...] that's a godsend.

Maybe not. Suppose the actual effect is to give those who say climate change
isn't real, or doesn't matter, enough extra rhetorical ammunition (THE EARTH
IS COOLING!!!11!) to prevent anything actually being done to get our house in
order. That would be ... not so good.

~~~
m_myers
People might say the earth is cooling merely because it is? Heavens, we can't
have that!

~~~
gjm11
Oh ho ho. But it might be worth distinguishing between (1) "temperatures over
the last few years have been decreasing" and (2) "the longer-term trend, of
which those last few years are a sample, is downwards", because #2 would mean
that global warming isn't a problem after all and #1 wouldn't.

And I'm afraid the recent history of people with a very decided political
agenda declining to distinguish between #1 and #2 even when the short-term
trend in question consists of _one slightly colder-than-average winter_ takes
some of the fun out of your ironic wit, for me.

------
ChuckMcM
My comment from the other link: reference:
<http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml>

Some more sensational coverage in The Register [1]. The correlation between
low sunspot activity and the 'mini ice-age' is well documented, its not proven
that solar activity caused that ice age, but it looks like we are getting a
chance to run the experiment again.

I'm continuing to follow are reports from the STEREO mission [2]. After
reading this paper [3] on the correlation between geomagnetic activity on the
sun and terrestrial temperatures.

BTW, the last chart in that paper is pretty amazing.

[1] <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/>

[2] <http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/>

[3]
[http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..9...](http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf)

------
michaelpinto
Betting on sunspots to reverse a century of adding carbon to the atmosphere
via fossil fuels is a bit of a long shot bet. Right now we're still in high
gear contributing to global warming, but predicting sun spot activity isn't a
sure thing.

I'd like to think that as techies we see not just the humanitarian potential
but the business potential of energy efficiency, new storage techniques and
even new sources of the stuff. It wasn't long ago when we used substances like
whale oil and trees to produce fuel -- if we limited ourselves as a society to
those sources we wouldn't be where we are today. This is a time where those
who embrace disruptive technologies are needed more than ever (and not just
for energy but for water and food as well).

~~~
Tyrant505
I think what trumps a lot of your awesome points is our efforts in
sustainability and forward thinking use of recycling with our products/waste.

~~~
wunderfool
wrong. that bottle of organic shampoo from whole food commits about 98% of the
sins as a bottle of a nonorganic varity from safeway. both are put in plastic
which may or may not be recycled but was certainly made from oil (like all
plastics), and was driven to the store in a vehicle that emits CO2, stored in
a room kept warm or cool with a device that emits CO2, and then driven back to
your house in another vehicle that emits CO2, where it is stored in your
closet kept warm or cool by another CO2-emitting device.

and in the end its a toss-up if it even gets recycled, even after you put it
in the blue bin. but that process also emits CO2

~~~
dasil003
I agree that current efforts at sustainability are pathetically weak, but I
disagree that CO2 emissions are fundamentally the problem. Global warming is
an environmentalist boogeyman that makes for good PR, but climate disaster or
not we have politically intractable problems with the waste of natural
resources. We can always grow more plants to reclaim CO2, but we can't
continue to just extract everything and then throw it in a landfill 6 months
later.

~~~
wunderfool
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch>

------
vannevar
The article is misleading. The part about an impending period of solar
inactivity comes from the solar physicists; the part about a mini-Ice Age
comes straight from the blogger based on a snippet from NASA's web site which
he either deliberately or inadvertently misread. Had he continued the quote
for only one more line, he would have included this important caveat:

 _The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of
on-going research._

~~~
justsee
The article is misleading, which is utterly unsurprising if you're already
familiar with the previous work of Lewis Page at El Reg.

He has a penchant for pumping stories that downplay climate change, Fukushima
meltdown, etc. If you want stories that play favourably for legacy energy
industry, he's your man at The Register.

------
jeffreymcmanus
This story is mostly bogus. There is no proven correlation between sunspots
and terrestrial temperatures.

[http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/06/14/science/AP-US-
SCI...](http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/06/14/science/AP-US-SCI-Quiet-
Sun.html)

------
psadauskas
Probably a better post, from the Bad Astronomer:

[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/06/14/th...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/06/14/the-
sun-may-be-headed-for-a-little-quiet-time)

------
kenjackson
If you thought the climate change debate was crazy before, well this will take
crazy to a whole new level.

~~~
hugh3
Yes, it either proves that

(a) natural variation in the Earth's climate is far larger than anything we
can manage anthropogenically anyway so attempts to cut carbon emissions are a
waste of time, or

(b) We're only being saved from CO2-induced global warming by a mini ice-age,
therefore it's even _more_ urgent to cut CO2 emissions because temperatures
are just gonna shoot up as soon as the ice age ends.

~~~
randallsquared
Another way to look at (b) is "We're only being saved from a mini ice-age by
CO2-induced global warming, therefore it's urgent to avoid cutting emissions
and plunging into it for real". The Earth has seen warmer and colder than now,
but the warm extremes have been better for life than the cold extremes.

~~~
ugh
Which life? Industrial age humans? That's who we care about. Our goal is (or
at least I hope it is) to enable humans to thrive, we don't really care about
other life (at least if we had to pick between humans and other life) as long
as it is not instrumental to our success.

~~~
felipemnoa
The problem is that without the other life there can be no human life. We are
on the top of the food chain and as such we depend on all other animals for
our survival. Hopefully it makes sense what I'm saying.

~~~
wunderfool
oddly enough some climate scientists (james lovelock, in this case) take it as
a given that most animal life is already doomed, and that humans will have to
engineer a food source in order to survive. green goo might be in your future

~~~
Blarat
Soylent Green perhaps? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green>

------
saalweachter
What's the confidence on this?

I recall a hub-bub a year or two back because a climate scientist made the
scientifically reasonable statement that it was "inconclusive" whether the
Earth had warmed in the last 15 years, because the statistical significance of
15 years of data was only at 90%, and scientists like having a 95% confidence
before they say something. (With the extra year of data, it is now
"conclusive", eg, >95%, that the Earth has warmed since 1995.)

I see 10 or 12 years of data on that graph; what's the confidence based on
these measurements that we are entering a mini Ice Age?

~~~
Jach
The basis of confidence intervals holding any usefulness is pretty shaky. See
<http://uncertainty.stat.cmu.edu/> (it also has a chapter on old ideas such as
this).

------
Hawramani
Reading the comments on here and many other places about global warming, it
makes me sad that nobody is open-minded enough to entertain the possibility
that an increase in the Earth's temperature could be a positive-sum change.

We know very little about the Earth's natural cycles and the effects we have
on them, so we are very far from knowing whether things are going in a good*
or bad direction.

* Good for everyone involved, such as humans, animals, plants, etc.

~~~
RuadhanMc
It is probably because people are comfortable with the familiar. Sure, a
warmer earth might be a positive-sum change, but there's an equally good
chance that it won't be. So why take the risk of losing what you have if you
can avoid it?

~~~
gwright
> equally good chance that it won't be.
    
    
       probability = ??????
    

is not at all the same thing as

    
    
       probability = 0.50

~~~
meric
If I have a question [???] and the answer is "true" or "false". The
probability of it being "true" is 50%; Every question you can come up with,
you can come up with a negative version. e.g. "Is your name gwright" vs "Is
your name not gwright".

So given any question where you know _absolutely nothing_ at all about it, the
probability the answer is "Yes" must be 50%!

~~~
retrogradeorbit
The correct answer is the correct answer 100% of the time. And the wrong
answer is the wrong answer 100% of the time. If I gave you a question where
the correct answer is "no" and you knew _absolutely nothing_ about it, your
answer "Yes" would be correct 0% of the time.

~~~
meric
That is true, the probability of "Yes" is 0, but only according to you.
Relative to me, however, the probability is still 50% chance.

It's just like if there was a stock the market know nothing about, but you
know it just scored a magnificent deal a couple of hours ago, the market will
see it as "meh, 50 50" (no price change), while you see "100% going to go up,
must buy."

That's called insider trading, however. ;)

------
mmaunder
On behalf of Maunders around the world, I'd like to extend my apologies for
the Minimum you're about to experience.

------
guilbep
Maybe nobody will read my comment since I'm a bit late but anyway: It seems
like nobody talked about the implication of the diminution of the solar
magnetic field.

If I remember correctly, the solar magnetic field (SMF) is held responsible
’not entirely, earth's GM too and other things’ for deflecting galactic cosmic
rays. What are the consequences of the current diminution of the SMF?

Looks like it will be better for space travel..(the article says) and how is
that? Solar storm > Cosmis ray?

Excuse me but seems to me like it's the other way around: "The storms actually
improved the radiation environment inside the station." via
([http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-
nasa/2005/07...](http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-
nasa/2005/07oct_afraid/))

What are you views on the subject? I don't know what to think anymore.

------
genki
"This could overturn decades of received wisdom on such things as CO2
emissions, and lead to radical shifts in government policy worldwide." - What
exactly is the article implying? Are they somehow saying that CO2 emissions
aren't a bad thing? Or that we should increase them so we can prevent the
'mini ice age' by increasing our negative effect on the climate?

Seems to be an extremely uninformed and misleading bit of 'reporting'...

~~~
ry0ohki
I guess that's kind of what it is saying? An Ice Age would be about as bad for
civilization as we know it as the ice caps melting (just in different ways),
in a time of global cooling, I suppose increased CO2 would keep the Earth
warmer then the last ice age.

------
snorkel
Ned was right, winter is coming.

~~~
Tichy
Is the movie out yet? I am still not sure if I want to continue reading the
series. It was so depressing.

~~~
thaumaturgy
I've been totally waiting with baited breath to launch this rant at some poor
unsuspecting sap. So, hi Tichy!

Man, I really really wanted to love that whole book series. The
characterization was fantastic, the settings were detailed and rich, the story
telling was great ...

But, sometime part-way through A Feast For Crows, I just couldn't stand
reading it any more. The violence seemed too unnecessary; the destruction of
characters that had been so carefully built had started to turn into an
expectation -- "I wonder how he's going to later make this interesting new
character suffer? Will he maim them? Murder them? Destroy them
psychologically?" For me, in that volume, it somehow went from being a great
story with difficult events to a really ugly story that just wasn't worth
reading anymore. I no longer cared about the characters because, y'know, they
were gonna die anyway. Or worse.

Now I'm starting to hear from people who are watching the HBO series but who
never read the books, and they're talking about how they really love this
character or that character, and every time inside I get this massive troll
face on and think, "Heh ... just you wait and see what happens to that one."

I sold my copy of the set to a used bookstore. I hear there's another one out
now, but I have very little desire, or curiosity, towards it.

~~~
Tichy
I only read the first book, but as I said, I found it too depressing. It
builds great atmosphere, but then everything just goes down the drain.

------
pama
_The announcement made on 14 June (18:00 UK time) comes from scientists at the
US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory._

Does anyone have the link to the original announcement?

~~~
nkurz
Maybe this? [http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~deforest/SPD-sunspot-
release/SP...](http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~deforest/SPD-sunspot-
release/SPD_solar_cycle_release.txt)

------
scottkduncan
If true, the 70-year cold period could turn out to be a grace period that
allows us to get carbon emissions under control by the time solar activity
returns to normal. Of course, this could lessen the imperative and make the
political task of reaching global consensus more difficult.

------
scorpion032
Relevant:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/david_deutsch_on_our_place_in_the_c...](http://www.ted.com/talks/david_deutsch_on_our_place_in_the_cosmos.html)

As David makes the point (at the near end of the video), the best available
science in the 1970's predicted that the climate was cooling down. The best
available science of today (not the least, with the help of best marketing)
would predict Global Warming.

The same best scientific estimates of the day also predict that our best
projections to bring down the emissions (which we will not achieve) themselves
suffice only to move the disaster point a little further, but not prevent the
inevitable.

~~~
ugh
Nah, a few scientists in the 70s believed that the Earth might cool, nothing
like today. To compare both predictions and their supporting evidence is
laughable.

~~~
scorpion032
The evidences are not being compared by themselves but rather used to lead to
the fact that "We can only do something based on what the current scientific
prediction is."

Based on the current scientific prediction the best measures that we even
intend to implement, The Kyoto Protocol (for all it's economic constraints),
is by far pushing the effects at most by a decade. Would it not be a good idea
rather to start looking at living at higher temperatures?

------
zheng
For those who don't have time to read the article, "mini Ice Age" literally
means that winter will last longer, and be more prevalent at lower
altitudes/latitudes. Mildly sensational, but an interesting read.

~~~
josefresco
As seemingly benign as a "slightly longer winter" seems, I would venture the
consequences of this will be larger than we anticipate.

~~~
ctdonath
Indeed, considering that the much-feared "global warming" constitutes an
increase of one degree per _century_.

~~~
scarmig
"World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F)
during the 21st century" IPCC

So, "one degree per century" is accurate if (a) you clarify you mean Celsius,
not Farenheit and (b) you're saying the minimum increase, while also noting
the maximum increase could be six times as high.

~~~
fleitz
I know and not only that but the oceans could rise 6 whole inches. That's like
half a foot.

~~~
ximeng
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise> says 90 to 880mm, with average
estimate of 480 mm, i.e. 4 feet.

------
wedesoft
It's not exactly news. Reduced solar activity has been observed for some time
and satellite measurements of the troposphere show a slow cooling of the
average global temperature over the last ten years.

Here is a presentation by Fred Singer if anybody is interested (in the past he
has headed the US weather satellite program for many years).
<http://videolectures.net/kolokviji_singer_nnha/>

------
singingfish
Article written by Lewis Page - the Register's resident climate change denier.
Not a trustworthy author on the topic I'm afraid.

------
itswindy
So we will either die of cold or heat. Maybe.

~~~
officemonkey
>Maybe.

I think it's pretty definite that each one of us will die. The only relevant
factor is how, and how much we suffer between now and then.

~~~
itswindy
>> I think it's pretty definite that each one of us will die

:). I meant die, dinosaur style.

------
tintin
News like this always makes me wonder if the Maya calendar is an accurate
description of cycles in nature. The end of there calendar also ends within a
decade. Maybe just a prediction of another cycle.

------
lupatus
For more reading about the possibility of a new mini Ice Age, see
<http://www.iceagenow.com>.

------
rahooligan
Where is the link to the announcement by the scientists that the author talks
about? I'd be curious to read it and make up my own mind.

------
danbmil99
Boy, that went well. I'm sure they'll believe us next time we say the sky is
falling.

------
dendory
A mini ice age + global warming = cool sailing ahead!

------
sabat
_far from facing a global warming problem_

We don't have a "global warming" problem. We have a manmade climate change
problem, which _may_ be worsened by the Sun's own agenda. I haven't read the
Bad Astronomer's take on this, but he's a lot more trustworthy than the OP.

------
Brewer
Anyone have Al Gore's email address?

------
tobylane
I don't know whather to cry because it'll be cold, cry because skeptics will
be wrongly smug dumbasses, enjoy the cold I prefer, or enjoy skeptics being
dumb as always.

------
guelo
Yay! Lets grab every bit of remaining oil for the next 50 years and spew it
into the air! We'll be mostly dead by then anyway, maybe the grandkids can
figure it out. SUVs for everyone!

------
powerslave12r
I'm going to save the world. Where's that Hummer showroom?

~~~
joelmichael
Sorry, humor is against the rules.

~~~
scott_s
No, we just have high standards.

------
ck2
I know climate change is not directly related to the current temperature but
wow it's strange to read this when it's currently 100 degrees here (no
exaggeration) and setting new temperature records for the past few decades.

Basically what's happened is our overly aggressive industrialization has
ruined the temperature stability we used to enjoy. And sadly we aren't done
yet as China rushes to catch up while we blow up mountains for more coal.

~~~
ja30278
umm...you did notice that the article was talking about temperature variations
caused by the GIANT NUCLEAR EXPLOSION AT THE CENTER OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM THAT
PROVIDES ALL OF OUR HEAT AND LIGHT....right? or are you suggesting that our
pesky first-world lifestyles are somehow causing a decrease in sunspots.

~~~
ck2
No it means our lifestyles are reducing the earth's natural shielding and
buffer from extreme changes. Earth is recovering more slowly and dealing more
poorly with what is being thrown at it.

We have billions fewer trees around the world than we did even just a few
hundred years ago.

~~~
corin_
If you actually read the article you'll see that they're not predicting some
drastic new changes that haven't happened before, they're predicting a repeat
of what happened a few hundred years ago.

If anything, the changes to the environment that we have caused since the
industrial revolution could help reduce the effects so that we are _less_
affected than when the same thing happened a few hundred years ago. Or maybe
the changes we've made is too insignificant in comparison and has no impact.
Either way, this mini ice age they are predicting is in no way because of any
changes we've caused.

------
daimyoyo
I seriously doubt that after 175 years of industrial CO₂ that suddenly we're
going to see this drastic change out of nowhere. It's much more likely to
occur gradually over time. That said, I welcome the ice age. I'm in Vegas and
it'd make the climate here perfect.

