What would a mini ice agr look like?

[Whacker77]

I've been out of town for the last ten days so I just had a chance to watch JB's January 20 video where he mentioned the sun spot activity and colder times ahead. He also mentioned that Russian astrophysicists put out a paper in the early 1990's which said the current sun spot period would set us up for a mini ice age by 2030. The only reason that caught my attention is that there has been mention here through linked articles that other astropysicists have essentially forecasted the same thing, a mini ice age by 2030.

Whether a mini ice age actually occurs or not, I wanted to know how others would expect a mini ice age to appear in the US. What would it look like? Would snow cover the ground year round in places like the Dakotas? Would snow cover reach all the way to the Gulf coast every winter and likely remain on the ground that far south for extended periods of time? Would rivers like the Ohio become frozen over every year? I'm really curious what others have to say about how a mini ice age would appear.

Any thoughts would be interesting and appreciated.

[okie333]

I've been out of town for the last ten days so I just had a chance to watch JB's January 20 video where he mentioned the sun spot activity and colder times ahead. He also mentioned that Russian astrophysicists put out a paper in the early 1990's which said the current sun spot period would set us up for a mini ice age by 2030. The only reason that caught my attention is that there has been mention here through linked articles that other astropysicists have essentially forecasted the same thing, a mini ice age by 2030.

Whether a mini ice age actually occurs or not, I wanted to know how others would expect a mini ice age to appear in the US. What would it look like? Would snow cover the ground year round in places like the Dakotas? Would snow cover reach all the way to the Gulf coast every winter and likely remain on the ground that far south for extended periods of time? Would rivers like the Ohio become frozen over every year? I'm really curious what others have to say about how a mini ice age would appear.

Any thoughts would be interesting and appreciated.

For the weather where I'm from there's no way of knowing, since the only people who lived there in the 1600's did not have a written language.

[Alpha5]

I think the Hudson River froze completely on a regular basis in the last mini ice age

[Northern Foothills Snowman]

I watch JB's videos every chance I get. I believe he is spot on on the future with the cold winters ahead for the U.S .He's talked about how he thinks we will have winter like back in the 70's and 80's.What I am wondering is how was the solar acvitity back then .We have had several years now where the acvitity is very low and sometimes non existant at all.I wondering how that will play out in the future of the winters.

[stormguy80]

There will be no “mini ice age” in the near future. That I’m pretty sure of. It’s possible we may cool back to 1960s / 1970s temps but these decades were not a mini ice age.

I watch JB's videos every chance I get. I believe he is spot on on the future with the cold winters ahead for the U.S .He's talked about how he thinks we will have winter like back in the 70's and 80's.What I am wondering is how was the solar acvitity back then .We have had several years now where the acvitity is very low and sometimes non existant at all.I wondering how that will play out in the future of the winters.

[stormguy80]

Yes, he may be partially right. Temps may hold steady or cool slightly by 2030. But I think in the longer term warming will resume and we will likely be warmer than present by 2100. I don’t like JB, I think he’s arrogant and he puts down other forecasters despite having been wrong plenty of times himself. He’s muddling the whole GW debate by only focusing on the 2010 to 2030 period. He is either willfully ignoring or doesn’t seem to get that the bigger concern is what will happen over the longer term toward 2100 and beyond. A short term cycle acting in one direction doesn’t disprove that a longer term trend could be acting in the opposite direction.

I watch JB's videos every chance I get. I believe he is spot on on the future with the cold winters ahead for the U.S .He's talked about how he thinks we will have winter like back in the 70's and 80's.What I am wondering is how was the solar acvitity back then .We have had several years now where the acvitity is very low and sometimes non existant at all.I wondering how that will play out in the future of the winters.

[WeatherRusty]

Since the industrial revolution solar variability is estimated at roughly 0.1% or 1.3W/m^2. The derived radiative forcing at Earth's surface is something like 0.12W/m^2.

In another 20 years CO2 concentration will have grown by some 40ppm at near the current rate of increase. This will have produced a radiative forcing of about 0.5W/m^2.

So, we can see that the increasing atmospheric CO2 forcing alone will easily outweigh any likely change in solar forcing. If a little ice age were caused entirely by changes in solar output, our CO2 emission will easily prevent any re-occurrence. Temps will continue to rise, there will be no little ice age or mini ice age.

[Northern Foothills Snowman]

Yes, he may be partially right. Temps may hold steady or cool slightly by 2030. But I think in the longer term warming will resume and we will likely be warmer than present by 2100. I don’t like JB, I think he’s arrogant and he puts down other forecasters despite having been wrong plenty of times himself. He’s muddling the whole GW debate by only focusing on the 2010 to 2030 period. He is either willfully ignoring or doesn’t seem to get that the bigger concern is what will happen over the longer term toward 2100 and beyond. A short term cycle acting in one direction doesn’t disprove that a longer term trend could be acting in the opposite direction.

Why is it when some dissagree with others they want to call thems names like arrogant?As for him focosing on certain years hasn' tthe global warming crowd done the same thing focusing on the last 20 years.?Where did Al put his hockey stick ?And as for the debate when and where did that debate take place?????Just saying the debate is over doesn't settle anything.If you want to deny it 's going to be colder ,not cool slightly,over the next 20 to 30 years thats your right.I do hope you have many coats and a good sourse of heat.This is nothing more than a cycle .There are warm periods and there are cold periods.We'e leaving the warm cycle in case you didn't know.At least you can grow friuts and vegetables when it's warm outside .I don't thing gardens do well when it's below freezing.I would like to know your thoughts on this winter.Everyone forecast was for a mild and dry winter across two thirds of the east.Jan was record cold for the U S.and Jan been very cold as well . I can see I didn't post my question in the right place.I'm dealing with people that have thier head in the sand .

[okie333]

I watch JB's videos every chance I get. I believe he is spot on on the future with the cold winters ahead for the U.S .He's talked about how he thinks we will have winter like back in the 70's and 80's.What I am wondering is how was the solar acvitity back then .We have had several years now where the acvitity is very low and sometimes non existant at all.I wondering how that will play out in the future of the winters.

60's and 70's are warmer that what's coming most likely... I put 60's-70's as the warm extreme, something a bit more extreme the Maunder as the cold extreme, early-1900's as a reasonable high estimate, between the Maunder and Dalton as reasonable low estimate, and Dalton Minimum repeat as the most likely occurrence.

[WeatherRusty]

Why is it when some dissagree with others they want to call thems names like arrogant

Well, because when one individual who happens to lack specific understanding within the broad array of sciences that contribute to modern climatology, ignores or denies that science while expecting to be taken seriously is being arrogant. He thinks he knows better how climate will change than does an entire scientific discipline.

[Northern Foothills Snowman]

Well, because when one individual who happens to lack specific understanding within the broad array of sciences that contribute to modern climatology, ignores or denies that science while expecting to be taken seriously is being arrogant. He thinks he knows better how climate will change than does an entire scientific discipline.

Then why does he ALWAYS say go look for yourself instead of that it settled.He knows better that the climate ,weather,changes as it always will.He's not getting his pockets lined like those ,so called,climate scientist are.

[stormguy80]

First of all, I don't think he's arrogant because I dissagree with him. I think he's arrogant because he is always tuting his horn about how he nailed this forecast or that forecast and always tries to weasle out of being wrong by saying things like "I had the right idea" or I was "wrong for the right reasons". He constantly bashes the NWS whenever he can even though they are far better than AW. Also, I said that he may be partially right and that we may indeed cool slightly over the next 20-30 years so I do know we are leaving the "warm period" and do not totally dissagree with him. You obviously didn't read what I said very carefully. You're the one that seems to have a hard time grasping difficult concepts. Why can't people see that it is entirely possible that short term cycles are superimposed over longer term ones? This is what I think which is why I acknowledge that we may cool slightly in the next 20-30 years even though the overall march is mostly likely toward a warmer climate by 2100. BTW, just so you know I am not what I'll call a "disaster warmest". I think that most likely we will see 1-2 degrees F of warming between now and 2100 that may easily be interupted by 10-30 year periods of cooling. I think most likely future warming will not be enough to lead to disaster although it can't be ruled out.

Why is it when some dissagree with others they want to call thems names like arrogant?As for him focosing on certain years hasn' tthe global warming crowd done the same thing focusing on the last 20 years.?Where did Al put his hockey stick ?And as for the debate when and where did that debate take place?????Just saying the debate is over doesn't settle anything.If you want to deny it 's going to be colder ,not cool slightly,over the next 20 to 30 years thats your right.I do hope you have many coats and a good sourse of heat.This is nothing more than a cycle .There are warm periods and there are cold periods.We'e leaving the warm cycle in case you didn't know.At least you can grow friuts and vegetables when it's warm outside .I don't thing gardens do well when it's below freezing.I would like to know your thoughts on this winter.Everyone forecast was for a mild and dry winter across two thirds of the east.Jan was record cold for the U S.and Jan been very cold as well . I can see I didn't post my question in the right place.I'm dealing with people that have thier head in the sand .

[Whacker77]

What a load of crap this thread turned out to be. All I asked is what might a mini ice age look like in the US. How might snow cover and temperatures look. Instead, I get a bunch of global warming/CO2 fanatics saying JB is arrogant and muddling up the debate on climate change. Well first of all, I don't care what your opinions are on the global warming issue. If I had, I would have asked for them. Second and more importantly, why isn't JB allowed to offer his opinions without being called arrogant? Maybe he's wrong, but how do we know the crowd believing in climate change isn't wrong or arrogant either. If I had wanted some boring, politically motivated debate on glabal warming, I would have asked for it. Read the post before you give a response that is, at best, tangentially related to it. If anyone wants to give some thoughts on what I originally asked, I would love to hear them. If you're only interested in repeating climate change/global warming/CO2 thoughts, don't bother.

[roardog]

I'm curious as to what Summer would be like.

[skierinvermont]

What a load of crap this thread turned out to be. All I asked is what might a mini ice age look like in the US. How might snow cover and temperatures look. Instead, I get a bunch of global warming/CO2 fanatics saying JB is arrogant and muddling up the debate on climate change. Well first of all, I don't care what your opinions are on the global warming issue. If I had, I would have asked for them. Second and more importantly, why isn't JB allowed to offer his opinions without being called arrogant? Maybe he's wrong, but how do we know the crowd believing in climate change isn't wrong or arrogant either. If I had wanted some boring, politically motivated debate on glabal warming, I would have asked for it. Read the post before you give a response that is, at best, tangentially related to it. If anyone wants to give some thoughts on what I originally asked, I would love to hear them. If you're only interested in repeating climate change/global warming/CO2 thoughts, don't bother.

Well since you ask, he is arrogant because he is ignoring huge amounts of evidence and research and expertise which he lacks. Sorry, that is arrogant. We don't all get to just make up guesses and speculation that fly in the face of the evidence and research. Not without a damn good reason we don't.

As for what it would look like.. why do you even have to ask? It would look like the last mini ice age in the late 1800s. In other words, colder and snowier.

It's not going to happen, because of the realities of energy transfer that WeatherRusty posted. The earth is currently steadily and rapidly gaining a huge amount of heat, it's unlikely that a drop in solar output would be large enough to neutralize, nevermind reverse this flow of energy.

[WeatherRusty]

What a load of crap this thread turned out to be. All I asked is what might a mini ice age look like in the US. How might snow cover and temperatures look. Instead, I get a bunch of global warming/CO2 fanatics saying JB is arrogant and muddling up the debate on climate change. Well first of all, I don't care what your opinions are on the global warming issue. If I had, I would have asked for them. Second and more importantly, why isn't JB allowed to offer his opinions without being called arrogant? Maybe he's wrong, but how do we know the crowd believing in climate change isn't wrong or arrogant either. If I had wanted some boring, politically motivated debate on glabal warming, I would have asked for it. Read the post before you give a response that is, at best, tangentially related to it. If anyone wants to give some thoughts on what I originally asked, I would love to hear them. If you're only interested in repeating climate change/global warming/CO2 thoughts, don't bother.

What is a mini ice age? Where would it occur? What analogs do we have to look back on? What caused them?

The LIA is thought to have resulted from a small decrease in averaged solar output punctuated by periods of enhanced volcanic activity. Measured globally the overall global temperature was no more than 1C cooler than today. Regionally temperature variation was much more pronounced. How this played out over the US I am not sure. Maybe the east coast was cooler due to a slow down of the Gulf Stream. Maybe the west coast was warmer due to a generally more amplified jet stream pattern.

You really can't separate an event from it's causes. In order to understand a particular cooling event and what it's particular pattern of impact would be you must have an idea what the mechanism of causation is/was. My point was that we should not expect a repeat of any mini ice age because the past causes will be easily overwhelmed by the forcing given by CO2.

[stormguy80]

chill out. threads are like conservations; it's natural for them to sometimes veer off a little to something that is related but not necessarily exactly along the lines of the original post. I never said the AGW crowd was definately right and that JB was definately wrong. I think people on both extremes who think that THEY HAVE THE DEFINATE ANSWER are wrong since the subject is too complex to be certain either way. To answer your question, JB isn't arrogant because of his opinions but because of the way he presents them and because he is already declaring himself the victor in this debate because of a few cold weeks in the middle of winter. Most importantly, I don't like how he always trashes other mets - most notably the NWS. He ridicules them for their "probablistic" method of forecasting even though all evidence suggests this is the best way to forecast.

What a load of crap this thread turned out to be. All I asked is what might a mini ice age look like in the US. How might snow cover and temperatures look. Instead, I get a bunch of global warming/CO2 fanatics saying JB is arrogant and muddling up the debate on climate change. Well first of all, I don't care what your opinions are on the global warming issue. If I had, I would have asked for them. Second and more importantly, why isn't JB allowed to offer his opinions without being called arrogant? Maybe he's wrong, but how do we know the crowd believing in climate change isn't wrong or arrogant either. If I had wanted some boring, politically motivated debate on glabal warming, I would have asked for it. Read the post before you give a response that is, at best, tangentially related to it. If anyone wants to give some thoughts on what I originally asked, I would love to hear them. If you're only interested in repeating climate change/global warming/CO2 thoughts, don't bother.

[Whacker77]

I'm not going to chill out because I'm sick of every thread becoming a back and forth on whether global warming does or does not exist. I asked about a mini ice age because I was curious what it might look like. Again, would snow cover the ground year round in the Dakotas? Would snow cover be dominant in the winter into the Gulf states? I didn't live in the 1800's and just saying it will be colder and snowier doesn't mean a whole lot. Compared to the 1990's, the past few winters could qualify as a mini ice age because they have been colder and snowier.

[stormguy80]

to answer your question, snow would not cover the ground year round in a "mini" ice age. Contrary to what some may think, summers do not disappear – even in a full fledged ice age. If global temps were to drop by say, 3 C or about 5-6 F (unlikely) I think it would mean parts of the central and eastern U.S. could cool by as much as 10 F. This could cool gulf coast states to levels closer to the mid Atlantic (where snow comes and goes in the winter) and make areas in the northeast U.S. more like eastern Canada. Summers would range from around 50 to 70 F for the U.S. and much of central and southern Canada. Snow would certainly last much longer in the spring and come earlier in the fall but I think just about all locals would see the snow disappear by July and August.

I'm not going to chill out because I'm sick of every thread becoming a back and forth on whether global warming does or does not exist. I asked about a mini ice age because I was curious what it might look like. Again, would snow cover the ground year round in the Dakotas? Would snow cover be dominant in the winter into the Gulf states? I didn't live in the 1800's and just saying it will be colder and snowier doesn't mean a whole lot. Compared to the 1990's, the past few winters could qualify as a mini ice age because they have been colder and snowier.

[BethesdaWX]

Well, because when one individual who happens to lack specific understanding within the broad array of sciences that contribute to modern climatology, ignores or denies that science while expecting to be taken seriously is being arrogant. He thinks he knows better how climate will change than does an entire scientific discipline.

Say it to my face, or cram it. Have I ever trashed you?

I'm 18yrs old, you're 60.....we youthful folk are supposed to model your behavoir......so......"Hey, lets use our computer model simulations as proof of AGW!!!" "Remember, the codes MUST be kept secret!"

[skierinvermont]

Say it to my face, or cram it. Have I ever trashed you?

I'm 18yrs old, you're 60.....we youthful folk are supposed to model your behavoir......so......"Hey, lets use our computer model simulations as proof of AGW!!!" "Remember, the codes MUST be kept secret!"

1) He was referring to Joe Bastardi not you. I think he's put you on ignore, or just stopped responding to you for the most part, because your posts are so terrible.

2) The codes for the GCMs and for the temperature indexes are publicly available. The sources for this have been provided to you before, so you are lying yet again.

[WeatherRusty]

Say it to my face, or cram it. Have I ever trashed you?

I'm 18yrs old, you're 60.....we youthful folk are supposed to model your behavoir......so......"Hey, lets use our computer model simulations as proof of AGW!!!" "Remember, the codes MUST be kept secret!"

BethesdaWX,

I was not referring to you. I was responding to what was being said with regard to Joe Bastardi.

When we argue here we are (I hope) having a debate amongst friends who happen to meet on an internet forum. I am as convicted as you in our respective points of view, but it should be obvious neither of us is going to convince the other using factual information alone. Joe Bastardi on the other hand is in a position of power and his opinion really does matter given his influence on the public. In my opinion anyone in his position should not be dishing out personal opinion as fact. He has a responsibility to follow the mainstream of science. You don't. You're fun Bethesda. No trashing intended.

[BethesdaWX]

BethesdaWX,

I was not referring to you. I was responding to what was being said with regard to Joe Bastardi.

When we argue here we are (I hope) having a debate amongst friends who happen to meet on an internet forum. I am as convicted as you in our respective points of view, but it should be obvious neither of us is going to convince the other using factual information alone. Joe Bastardi on the other hand is in a position of power and his opinion really does matter given his influence on the public. In my opinion anyone in his position should not be dishing out personal opinion as fact. He has a responsibility to follow the mainstream of science. You don't. You're fun Bethesda. No trashing intended.

I apologize then, my fault.

[BethesdaWX]

1) He was referring to Joe Bastardi not you. I think he's put you on ignore, or just stopped responding to you for the most part, because your posts are so terrible.

2) The codes for the GCMs and for the temperature indexes are publicly available. The sources for this have been provided to you before, so you are lying yet again.

haha

The codes for the NASA/NOAA "supercomputers", that comeup with the predictions, are not publicly available, ask any MET here.

Example, the MET office's "supercomputer"code is hidden...as are all these model's codes.

[skierinvermont]

haha

The codes for the NASA/NOAA "supercomputers", that comeup with the predictions, are not publicly available, ask any MET here.

Example, the MET office's "supercomputer"code is hidden...as are all these model's codes.

Wrong. My post includes the raw station data and code for formulation of the temperature indexes. It also includes links to the CODE to various global climate models (GCMs) including GISS's modelE, GISS's climate model II, NCAR's CSM3.0, and documentation for NOAA's GFDL CM2. These are some of the models used in the IPCC report, as seen in the chart below from the Fourth Assessment Report. Documentation and/or code for the other models is available as well, but I got tired wasting my time dispelling yet another false myth by you.

Here is the raw station data that comprises the vast majority of GISS, HadCRUT and NOAA temperature indexes:

http://www.ncdc.noaa...how=data_access

Additional temperature station info as well as the CODE for HadCRUT is available here:

http://www.metoffice...ng/subsets.html

The code for the GISS climate model is available here:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

Documentation for NOAA's GCM called GFDL CM2 is available here:

http://nomads.gfdl.n...2.X/references/

EdGCM, a climate model also produced by GISS and referred to as GCM II in the scientific literature is available here:

http://edgcm.columbia.edu/

NCAR's GCM CSM3 also has the CODE and documentation publicly available:

http://www.cesm.ucar...ls/ccsm3.0/#src

[BethesdaWX]

Here is the raw station data that comprises the vast majority of GISS, HadCRUT and NOAA temperature indexes:

http://www.ncdc.noaa...how=data_access

Additional temperature station info as well as the CODE for HadCRUT is available here:

http://www.metoffice...ng/subsets.html

The code for the GISS climate model is available here:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

Documentation for NOAA's GCM called GFDL CM2 is available here:

http://nomads.gfdl.n...2.X/references/

EdGCM, a climate model also produced by GISS and referred to as GCM II in the scientific literature is available here:

http://edgcm.columbia.edu/

NCAR's GCM CSM3 also has the CODE and documentation publicly available:

http://www.cesm.ucar...ls/ccsm3.0/#src

haha omfg,

Are you capable of reading? When did I say anything about live temperature measurement models? :lol:

I'm speaking of the Computer Forecasting & atmospheric dynamical measuring models used by IPCC/NASA/NOAA that make predictions, analyze atmospheric profiles, & weight datasets........they keep those bottled up. There are no codes available...meaning, the codes as in, what is weighted, the data prognosis into its dynamic, the computer code itself so skeptics can reproduce data.....its not there.

Example, Met Office, IRI...etc. Those are not publicly available to the public.

FYI, HADCRUT/GISS pre-grid anomaly spread before homogenizations are not publicly available.....but thats not what I was talking about.

[skierinvermont]

Wrong. My post includes the raw station data and code for formulation of the temperature indexes. It also includes links to the CODE to various global climate models (GCMs) including GISS's modelE, GISS's climate model II, NCAR's CSM3.0, and documentation for NOAA's GFDL CM2. These are some of the models used in the IPCC report, as seen in the chart below from the Fourth Assessment Report. Documentation and/or code for the other models is available as well, but I got tired wasting my time dispelling yet another false myth by you.

Here is the raw station data that comprises the vast majority of GISS, HadCRUT and NOAA temperature indexes:

http://www.ncdc.noaa...how=data_access

Additional temperature station info as well as the CODE for HadCRUT is available here:

http://www.metoffice...ng/subsets.html

The code for the GISS climate model is available here:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

Documentation for NOAA's GCM called GFDL CM2 is available here:

http://nomads.gfdl.n...2.X/references/

EdGCM, a climate model also produced by GISS and referred to as GCM II in the scientific literature is available here:

http://edgcm.columbia.edu/

NCAR's GCM CSM3 also has the CODE and documentation publicly available:

http://www.cesm.ucar...ls/ccsm3.0/#src

haha omfg

Are you capable of reading? When did I say anything about live temperature measurement models? :lol:

I'm speaking of the Computer Forecasting & atmospheric dynamical measuring models used by IPCC/NASA/NOAA that make predictions, analyze atmospheric profiles, & weight datasets........they keep those bottled up.

Example, Met Office, IRI...etc. Those are not publicly available to the public.

FYI, HADCRUT/GISS pre-grid anomaly spread before homogenizations are not publicly available.....but thats not what I was talking about.

I guess you didn't read past the first word or two. I have included the CODE and DOCUMENTATION to several of the major global climate models used in the IPCC report.

Also, GISS and HadCRUT are available pre-homogenization and pre-grid. It's called GHCN. That includes the raw station data used in GISS/HadCRUT. A link to it is provided in my above post.

[BethesdaWX]

I guess you didn't read past the first word or two. I have included the CODE and DOCUMENTATION to several of the major global climate models used in the IPCC report.

........ this is hilarious.

[BethesdaWX]

You referring to this? :lol:

TABLE 1. Model input parameters related to radiative forcing

for the 1860 and 1990 control integrations.

1860 1990

Solar irradiance 1364.67W m2 1366.86W m2

CO2 285.98 ppmva 352.72 ppmv

CH4 804.9 ppbvb 1688.625 ppbv

F11 0 pptvc 259 pptv

F12 0 pptv 466.375 pptv

F22 0 pptv 89.25 pptv

F113 0 pptv 71.375 pptv

N2O 275 ppbv 308.45 ppbv

Land cover 1860 distribution 1990 distribution

http://nomads.gfdl.noaa.gov/CM2.X/references/i1520-0442-19-5-643.pdf

Tell me, do you see an issue here? As in

1) missing variables

2) Potentially incorrect values for times of uncertain data

[skierinvermont]

........ this is hilarious.

Yes. Your lack of reading skills is frightening. I have provided links to several major CLIMATE MODELS that are used to make PROJECTIONS in the IPCC report. The CODE and DOCUMENTATION is provided in my links.

Yet another miserable failure by you. Stop disseminating blatant LIES.