That’s a lot of ash. Seems to be a big year for volcanic activity so far. Wonder how much this is affecting global cooling?
Another reason to worry about global warming: more and itchier poison ivy.
The noxious vine grows faster and bigger as carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere rise, researchers report Monday.
Healthier plant life is something to worry about? What about the trees and plants that gives us life and absorb those pesky greenhouse gases?
Whew. Talk about spin.
Scientists predict the next solar activity cycle will be 30 to 50 percent stronger than the previous one and up to a year late. Accurately predicting the sun’s cycles will help plan for the effects of solar storms. The storms can disrupt satellite orbits and electronics; interfere with radio communication; damage power systems; and can be hazardous to unprotected astronauts.
The breakthrough “solar climate” forecast by Mausumi Dikpati and colleagues at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. was made with a combination of computer simulation and groundbreaking observations of the solar interior from space using NASA’s Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO). NASA’s Living With a Star program and the National Science Foundation funded the research.
The sun goes through a roughly 11-year cycle of activity, from stormy to quiet and back again. Solar storms begin with tangled magnetic fields generated by the sun’s churning electrically charged gas (plasma). Like a rubber band twisted too far, solar magnetic fields can suddenly snap to a new shape, releasing tremendous energy as a flare or a coronal mass ejection (CME). This violent solar activity often occurs near sunspots, dark regions on the sun caused by concentrated magnetic fields.
Now, if my theory holds true, I would strongly suggest those that have not moved back to New Orleans, don’t.
4/20/17 Editor’s Update: We now have retrospect. The “next” Solar Cycle has now come and gone. Rather than being 30 to 50 percent stronger, as predicted by NASA, it was 30 to 50 percent weaker. The stronger double band to me is pointless OTHER than the fact the first peak of the cycle was so profoundly weak possibly the second band being stronger might indicate that the cycle might be returning to normal. The one year delay did occur as predicted and 2007 was a remarkably uneventful year.
The big picture from all of this? The less activity, the warmer it feels on Earth. 2007 was a brutally hot year. When it peaked, we had the biggest snowfalls in a decade. SOME will say this all coincidence. I don’t believe that. MY prediction is that if the solar cycle returns to its normal levels, the Earth will magically cool and scientists will be dumbfounded trying to explain while global climate change isn’t going as planned.
Increased snowfall over a large area of Antarctica is thickening the ice sheet and slowing the rise in sea level caused by melting ice. A satellite survey shows that between 1992 and 2003, the East Antarctic ice sheet gained about 45 billion tonnes of ice – enough to reduce the oceans’ rise by 0.12 millimetres per year. The ice sheets that cover Antarctica’s bedrock are several kilometres thick in places, and contain about 90% of the world’s ice. But scientists fear that if they melt in substantial quantities, this will swell the oceans and cause devastation on islands and coastal lands.
Apparently the argument that the “melting polar ice caps” is not quite as clear cut as we have been led to believe. Some are melting, some are growing. Although “scientists” make the assumption that the Earth is continually warming, what happens if that doesn’t occur?
After researching the log-books of Arctic explorers spanning the past 300 years, scientists believe that the outer edge of sea ice may expand and contract over regular periods of 60 to 80 years. This change corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature.
This makes more sense to me than anything I’ve read in months. Although the effects of man have been predicted to cause about a 1 degree fahrenheit change in temps, the wobbling of the Earth affects climate more. The changes in solar activity affect temps more. A lot of things do. The Earth has gone through many hot and humid stages and many ice ages well before man started burning coal. For people to now take those obvious cycles and totally dismiss them and attribute all things climate to the activities of Man is totally disingenuous. There is a balance somewhere in the middle of Earth’s cycles and man’s affect. What I want to know is how Man affects that cycle. If we understand how we fit into that cycle then we know what to expect in 20 years. Totally ignoring that cycle guarantees those projections will be wrong. If the Earth is entering into another ice age in five years, global warming will become moot. We can’t burn enough coal and oil to stop that from happening. What we will need to do is go to more effective and efficient energy to heat our homes and cities. Nuclear will become more acceptable as the price explodes due to the increasing demands of cooling temperatures. That will push Man away from burning fossil fuels a lot faster than any chicken-little warnings from Al Gore.
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
There is more. That was from a Newsweek article published April 28, 1975.
As I type this, it is nine degrees outside.