27 ms·

Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade

318 points by Jach 15y ago

Hawramani 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    > equally good chance that it won't be. probability = ?????? is not at all the same thing as probability = 0.50
    - Jach 15y ago
      In this case, it is! The GP is using a uniform prior assigning "equally good chance" to either outcome (good or bad). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability Of course stopping there seems to be silly since I'm sure more informed people have evidence that can shift that probability one way or the other.
    - meric 15y ago
      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 15y ago
        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 15y ago
        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. ;)
  - FrojoS 15y ago
    Exactly. The worst case, I'm afraid, would be another MARS in the solar system.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - FrojoS 15y ago
      Down votes? I know physicist, who tell me in private, that they are afraid about a point of no return. That we heat the climate up to a point where the system gets unstable. This is, as far as I know, what could have happend on planet Mars and it could happen here. Yet, you barley see anyone mentioning this public. A sane risk assessment number should be something like: Gain / (Risk * Damage) So if the, theoretical, damage on Earth could make it something like Mars, we should act, even if we loose a lot of gain, that is comfort, and though the risk might seem low. On a sight note, the same goes for other humanity threatening dangers, like big asteroids.
- vannevar 15y ago
  Looking around the solar system, we would have to conclude that significant climate change in either direction is bad for life. None of our neighbors appears to support even microbial life, much less complex species. All the evidence suggests that the conditions for life lie in a narrow band, which we are sitting in nicely for the moment. We manipulate the climate at our peril.
- c2 15y ago
  First off, the global warming debate is not just about temperatures. It is also about resource use, pollution, waste, contamination of environments, etc. Secondly, the effect of this 'mini ice age' will last a scant 10 or so years. Call me crazy but it doesn't make sense to burn more fossil fuels and continue to cause potentially unrepairable harm to our environment to optimize for a period of 10 years of relatively cool temperatures. If the scientific community agrees that warmer temperatures are in the planet's best interest, I'm sure there is a safer and more effective way to bring that about then the massive amount of pollution and CO2 we are currently pumping into the atmosphere.
  - wunderfool 15y ago
    some interesting food for thought. in james lovelock's last book, he discusses how recent volcanos have indeed had a measurable cooling impact (abeit short term)...he suggests that it may indeed be the case that humanity, in a fit of desperation, may have to (try to) engineer a large scale introduction of such material into the atmosphere to create immediate cooling...even though such material itself poses many dangers
- ak217 15y ago
  There's a fine line between open-mindedness and having a hole in your head. Seriously though, it's very certain that global climate change of unpredictable magnitude right now is not desirable. The key problem is that we're not prepared to preserve biological diversity. We're placing our ecosystems under extreme pressure, severely compromising them, sometimes depleting their resources so they will take hundreds or even thousands of years to recover. This results in mass extinctions and near-extinctions (which can be very damaging through genetic bottlenecks, aka inbreeding). For most species, we currently have no adequate technology to preserve single individuals, let alone entire populations, outside their original habitat. Why does this matter? Because biological diversity is critical to our long-term success in bioengieering, and mind-bogglingly hard to replenish in an accelerated way. We will be able to preserve and resurrect species much sooner than we will be able to mutate them in a natural way to preserve their intraspecies diversity. But so far we can't even do that, so we're losing entire genotypes forever - genotypes that we have no idea how to reconstruct, or what hidden treasures lay in their genomes. And this is just the biggest problem, not taking into account the philosophical preservationist argument, or the smaller problems like increased risk of global conflicts due to mass displacements, ocean acidification, etc.
powerslave12r 15y ago
I'm going to save the world. Where's that Hummer showroom?
- joelmichael 15y ago
  Sorry, humor is against the rules.
  - calebmpeterson 15y ago
    Ironically, I chuckled at your statement...
  - scott_s 15y ago
    No, we just have high standards.
kenjackson 15y ago
If you thought the climate change debate was crazy before, well this will take crazy to a whole new level.
- hugh3 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      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 15y ago
        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 15y ago
zheng 15y ago
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 15y ago
  As seemingly benign as a "slightly longer winter" seems, I would venture the consequences of this will be larger than we anticipate.
  - zheng 15y ago
    Well, assuming they're correct in their predictions, quite possibly.
  - ctdonath 15y ago
    Indeed, considering that the much-feared "global warming" constitutes an increase of one degree per _century_.
    - scarmig 15y ago
      "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 15y ago
        I know and not only that but the oceans could rise 6 whole inches. That's like half a foot.
        ximeng 15y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise says 90 to 880mm, with average estimate of 480 mm, i.e. 4 feet.
michaelpinto 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      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.
hugh3 15y ago
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.
- AndyKelley 15y ago
  "The political problem of who gets to control the Earth's thermostat is, of course, a tricky one." Understatement of the year. Can you imagine?
  - jhamburger 15y ago
    Might test the BRIC alliances. Russia and Brazil probably won't agree on this one.
    - rglullis 15y ago
      What BRIC alliances? BRIC countries are just clumped together for being developing economies that are going through similar experiences, but it is far from being a political-economic group. Quite the opposite, actually.
      - jhamburger 15y ago
        There has been an annual BRICS summit attended by the leaders on the 5 nations since 2009. Clearly it's a bit more than a clever media acronym.
        rglullis 15y ago
        Correct, but I wouldn't say this can be called an "Alliance". Even the members of this group are hard to precise. Some would put Korea, some would put Nigeria, some would put Indonesia, etc. "BRIC" is no NATO, or anything that resembles some formal structure. The "BRIC" countries are getting into multi-lateral agreements, yes, but there is no "BRIC" organization. While the summit is used to conduct agreements between Russia and China, or Brazil/China/India, there is no "BRIC alliance".
pama 15y ago
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 15y ago
  Maybe this? http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~deforest/SPD-sunspot-release/SPD_solar_cycle_release.txt http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~deforest/SPD-sunspot-release/SP...
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
mmaunder 15y ago
On behalf of Maunders around the world, I'd like to extend my apologies for the Minimum you're about to experience.
saalweachter 15y ago
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 15y ago
  The basis of confidence intervals holding any usefulness is pretty shaky. See http://uncertainty.stat.cmu.edu/ http://uncertainty.stat.cmu.edu/ (it also has a chapter on old ideas such as this).
sabat 15y ago
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.
psadauskas 15y ago
Probably a better post, from the Bad Astronomer: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/06/14/the-sun-may-be-headed-for-a-little-quiet-time http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/06/14/th...
scorpion032 15y ago
Relevant: http://www.ted.com/talks/david_deutsch_on_our_place_in_the_cosmos.html http://www.ted.com/talks/david_deutsch_on_our_place_in_the_c... 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.
- mkr-hn 15y ago
  Our capacity to study the Earth's climate has improved dramatically since the '70s. We barely had an idea of what the weather on other planets looked like. And I was under the impression that the global cooling folks were a fringe minority of the scientific community (like the AGW people today).
  - scorpion032 15y ago
    David doesn't say global cooling fyi. He just points out that, if our best measures to prevent Global Warming, Kyoto Protocol (which itself will not be implemented) themselves intend not to solve the problem, but just to postpone by a decade, we should probably start looking for solutions to live at higher temperature. Too bad that it is not informing a public debate.
- nice1 15y ago
  I beg to differ: the best available science does NOT predict global warming. GW is predicted by a bunch of 3rd rate bullshit artists. Please use the internet and get a clue.
- ugh 15y ago
  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.
scarmig 15y ago
The Maunder minimum argument has been around awhile. A useful counterbalance from NASA 2008: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/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 15y ago
  > 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.
  - scarmig 15y ago
    True. But if lucky happenstance lets us be where we are now in 2060 instead of current predictions, that's still a net win--we'll be a significantly richer world then with more resources and technology to adapt to climate change. On the other side of things, the ability of CO2 to contribute to the greenhouse effect may well be saturated by then, just counteracted by the solar cycle. Which would leave us in the place where we're at the mercy of sunspots (which have no control over) and our ability to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere (which we may or may not have control over). Not so good.
scottkduncan 15y ago
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.
snorkel 15y ago
Ned was right, winter is coming.
- Tichy 15y ago
  Is the movie out yet? I am still not sure if I want to continue reading the series. It was so depressing.
  - thaumaturgy 15y ago
    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.
    - asciimo 15y ago
      Ha. The first thing I thought when I read that article was "winter is coming" so I immediately searched for that string in the comments. I'm glad I'm not alone. I'm a few pages from the end of A Game of Thrones and I have been shocked by some of the character abuse you're talking about. Right now, it's kind of exciting, but I can definitely see it getting tiresome if it becomes gratuitous. Thanks for the warning--I won't feel guilty if I abandon the series midway through!
daimyoyo 15y ago
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.
genki 15y ago
"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 15y ago
  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.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
rahooligan 15y ago
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.
lupatus 15y ago
For more reading about the possibility of a new mini Ice Age, see http://www.iceagenow.com http://www.iceagenow.com.
ck2 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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_ 15y ago
      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.
itswindy 15y ago
So we will either die of cold or heat. Maybe.
- officemonkey 15y ago
  >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 15y ago
    >> I think it's pretty definite that each one of us will die :). I meant die, dinosaur style.
- emilis_info 15y ago
  Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I've tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice.
ChuckMcM 15y ago
My comment from the other link: reference: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml 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/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/ [2] http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/ http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/ [3] http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..9...
tobylane 15y ago
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.
singingfish 15y ago
Article written by Lewis Page - the Register's resident climate change denier. Not a trustworthy author on the topic I'm afraid.
jeffreymcmanus 15y ago
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-Quiet-Sun.html http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/06/14/science/AP-US-SCI...
guelo 15y ago
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!
vannevar 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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.
danbmil99 15y ago
Boy, that went well. I'm sure they'll believe us next time we say the sky is falling.
Brewer 15y ago
Anyone have Al Gore's email address?
dendory 15y ago
A mini ice age + global warming = cool sailing ahead!
wedesoft 15y ago
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/ http://videolectures.net/kolokviji_singer_nnha/
tintin 15y ago
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.
guilbep 15y ago
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/2005/07oct_afraid/ http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/07...) What are you views on the subject? I don't know what to think anymore.

318 points by Jach 15y ago

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 15y ago
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 15y ago
  > equally good chance that it won't be. probability = ?????? is not at all the same thing as probability = 0.50
  - Jach 15y ago
    In this case, it is! The GP is using a uniform prior assigning "equally good chance" to either outcome (good or bad). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability Of course stopping there seems to be silly since I'm sure more informed people have evidence that can shift that probability one way or the other.
  - meric 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      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 15y ago
        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. ;)
- FrojoS 15y ago
  Exactly. The worst case, I'm afraid, would be another MARS in the solar system.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - FrojoS 15y ago
    Down votes? I know physicist, who tell me in private, that they are afraid about a point of no return. That we heat the climate up to a point where the system gets unstable. This is, as far as I know, what could have happend on planet Mars and it could happen here. Yet, you barley see anyone mentioning this public. A sane risk assessment number should be something like: Gain / (Risk * Damage) So if the, theoretical, damage on Earth could make it something like Mars, we should act, even if we loose a lot of gain, that is comfort, and though the risk might seem low. On a sight note, the same goes for other humanity threatening dangers, like big asteroids.
vannevar 15y ago
Looking around the solar system, we would have to conclude that significant climate change in either direction is bad for life. None of our neighbors appears to support even microbial life, much less complex species. All the evidence suggests that the conditions for life lie in a narrow band, which we are sitting in nicely for the moment. We manipulate the climate at our peril.
c2 15y ago
First off, the global warming debate is not just about temperatures. It is also about resource use, pollution, waste, contamination of environments, etc. Secondly, the effect of this 'mini ice age' will last a scant 10 or so years. Call me crazy but it doesn't make sense to burn more fossil fuels and continue to cause potentially unrepairable harm to our environment to optimize for a period of 10 years of relatively cool temperatures. If the scientific community agrees that warmer temperatures are in the planet's best interest, I'm sure there is a safer and more effective way to bring that about then the massive amount of pollution and CO2 we are currently pumping into the atmosphere.
- wunderfool 15y ago
  some interesting food for thought. in james lovelock's last book, he discusses how recent volcanos have indeed had a measurable cooling impact (abeit short term)...he suggests that it may indeed be the case that humanity, in a fit of desperation, may have to (try to) engineer a large scale introduction of such material into the atmosphere to create immediate cooling...even though such material itself poses many dangers
ak217 15y ago
There's a fine line between open-mindedness and having a hole in your head. Seriously though, it's very certain that global climate change of unpredictable magnitude right now is not desirable. The key problem is that we're not prepared to preserve biological diversity. We're placing our ecosystems under extreme pressure, severely compromising them, sometimes depleting their resources so they will take hundreds or even thousands of years to recover. This results in mass extinctions and near-extinctions (which can be very damaging through genetic bottlenecks, aka inbreeding). For most species, we currently have no adequate technology to preserve single individuals, let alone entire populations, outside their original habitat. Why does this matter? Because biological diversity is critical to our long-term success in bioengieering, and mind-bogglingly hard to replenish in an accelerated way. We will be able to preserve and resurrect species much sooner than we will be able to mutate them in a natural way to preserve their intraspecies diversity. But so far we can't even do that, so we're losing entire genotypes forever - genotypes that we have no idea how to reconstruct, or what hidden treasures lay in their genomes. And this is just the biggest problem, not taking into account the philosophical preservationist argument, or the smaller problems like increased risk of global conflicts due to mass displacements, ocean acidification, etc.

powerslave12r 15y ago

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

joelmichael 15y ago
Sorry, humor is against the rules.
- calebmpeterson 15y ago
  Ironically, I chuckled at your statement...
- scott_s 15y ago
  No, we just have high standards.

kenjackson 15y ago

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

hugh3 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      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 15y ago

zheng 15y ago

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 15y ago
As seemingly benign as a "slightly longer winter" seems, I would venture the consequences of this will be larger than we anticipate.
- zheng 15y ago
  Well, assuming they're correct in their predictions, quite possibly.
- ctdonath 15y ago
  Indeed, considering that the much-feared "global warming" constitutes an increase of one degree per _century_.
  - scarmig 15y ago
    "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 15y ago
      I know and not only that but the oceans could rise 6 whole inches. That's like half a foot.
      - ximeng 15y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise says 90 to 880mm, with average estimate of 480 mm, i.e. 4 feet.

michaelpinto 15y ago

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 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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.

hugh3 15y ago

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.

AndyKelley 15y ago
"The political problem of who gets to control the Earth's thermostat is, of course, a tricky one." Understatement of the year. Can you imagine?
- jhamburger 15y ago
  Might test the BRIC alliances. Russia and Brazil probably won't agree on this one.
  - rglullis 15y ago
    What BRIC alliances? BRIC countries are just clumped together for being developing economies that are going through similar experiences, but it is far from being a political-economic group. Quite the opposite, actually.
    - jhamburger 15y ago
      There has been an annual BRICS summit attended by the leaders on the 5 nations since 2009. Clearly it's a bit more than a clever media acronym.
      - rglullis 15y ago
        Correct, but I wouldn't say this can be called an "Alliance". Even the members of this group are hard to precise. Some would put Korea, some would put Nigeria, some would put Indonesia, etc. "BRIC" is no NATO, or anything that resembles some formal structure. The "BRIC" countries are getting into multi-lateral agreements, yes, but there is no "BRIC" organization. While the summit is used to conduct agreements between Russia and China, or Brazil/China/India, there is no "BRIC alliance".

pama 15y ago

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 15y ago
Maybe this? http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~deforest/SPD-sunspot-release/SPD_solar_cycle_release.txt http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~deforest/SPD-sunspot-release/SP...
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

mmaunder 15y ago

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

saalweachter 15y ago

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 15y ago
The basis of confidence intervals holding any usefulness is pretty shaky. See http://uncertainty.stat.cmu.edu/ http://uncertainty.stat.cmu.edu/ (it also has a chapter on old ideas such as this).

sabat 15y ago

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.

psadauskas 15y ago

Probably a better post, from the Bad Astronomer: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/06/14/the-sun-may-be-headed-for-a-little-quiet-time http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/06/14/th...

scorpion032 15y ago

Relevant: http://www.ted.com/talks/david_deutsch_on_our_place_in_the_cosmos.html http://www.ted.com/talks/david_deutsch_on_our_place_in_the_c... 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.

mkr-hn 15y ago
Our capacity to study the Earth's climate has improved dramatically since the '70s. We barely had an idea of what the weather on other planets looked like. And I was under the impression that the global cooling folks were a fringe minority of the scientific community (like the AGW people today).
- scorpion032 15y ago
  David doesn't say global cooling fyi. He just points out that, if our best measures to prevent Global Warming, Kyoto Protocol (which itself will not be implemented) themselves intend not to solve the problem, but just to postpone by a decade, we should probably start looking for solutions to live at higher temperature. Too bad that it is not informing a public debate.
nice1 15y ago
I beg to differ: the best available science does NOT predict global warming. GW is predicted by a bunch of 3rd rate bullshit artists. Please use the internet and get a clue.
ugh 15y ago
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.

scarmig 15y ago

The Maunder minimum argument has been around awhile. A useful counterbalance from NASA 2008: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/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 15y ago
> 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.
- scarmig 15y ago
  True. But if lucky happenstance lets us be where we are now in 2060 instead of current predictions, that's still a net win--we'll be a significantly richer world then with more resources and technology to adapt to climate change. On the other side of things, the ability of CO2 to contribute to the greenhouse effect may well be saturated by then, just counteracted by the solar cycle. Which would leave us in the place where we're at the mercy of sunspots (which have no control over) and our ability to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere (which we may or may not have control over). Not so good.

scottkduncan 15y ago

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.

snorkel 15y ago

Ned was right, winter is coming.

Tichy 15y ago
Is the movie out yet? I am still not sure if I want to continue reading the series. It was so depressing.
- thaumaturgy 15y ago
  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.
  - asciimo 15y ago
    Ha. The first thing I thought when I read that article was "winter is coming" so I immediately searched for that string in the comments. I'm glad I'm not alone. I'm a few pages from the end of A Game of Thrones and I have been shocked by some of the character abuse you're talking about. Right now, it's kind of exciting, but I can definitely see it getting tiresome if it becomes gratuitous. Thanks for the warning--I won't feel guilty if I abandon the series midway through!

daimyoyo 15y ago

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.

genki 15y ago

"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 15y ago
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.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

rahooligan 15y ago

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.

lupatus 15y ago

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

ck2 15y ago

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 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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_ 15y ago
    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.

itswindy 15y ago

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

officemonkey 15y ago
>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 15y ago
  >> I think it's pretty definite that each one of us will die :). I meant die, dinosaur style.
emilis_info 15y ago
Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I've tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice.

ChuckMcM 15y ago

My comment from the other link: reference: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml 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/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/ [2] http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/ http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/ [3] http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..9...

tobylane 15y ago

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.

singingfish 15y ago

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

jeffreymcmanus 15y ago

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

guelo 15y ago

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!

vannevar 15y ago

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 15y ago
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.

danbmil99 15y ago

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

Brewer 15y ago

Anyone have Al Gore's email address?

dendory 15y ago

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

wedesoft 15y ago

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/ http://videolectures.net/kolokviji_singer_nnha/

tintin 15y ago

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.

guilbep 15y ago

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/2005/07oct_afraid/ http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/07...) What are you views on the subject? I don't know what to think anymore.