3 ms·

There is some, most of it that I've seen is related to vulcanology. There was also an article in Discover magazine in the late 90's (which formed the basis for

There is some, most of it that I've seen is related to vulcanology. There was also an article in Discover magazine in the late 90's (which formed the basis for "The Day After Tomorrow" even though it was blindingly obvious that the writers didn't understand any of the article's science) that described some simulations that the author's had developed. They found that the runaway greenhouse effect lead to an ice age, but not from global cooling. Instead, it lead to an ice age because the melting ice submerged the North Atlantic Gyre, preventing it from transferring heat to New England and Europe, leading to a drastic drop in their temperatures. So while the arctic and sub-arctic zones experience plunging temperatures, the equatorial waters end up getting warmer since the currents that normally convey their heat elsewhere aren't flowing... so the hurricanes get stronger and more frequent. The buffoons that wrote the movie script somehow got the impression that it was possible for a hurricane to form in the arctic. They should have consulted a 4th-grader about how things tend to move downhill rather than uphill.

gibsonf1 18y ago
It sounds like your reference is to ideas predicated on melting arctic ice, which is not happening. Everything I've read on co2 theories and models only predicts increased warming, never cooling, so since 1998 the climate reality seems to be diverging with increasing acceleration away from any predictions about co2. The solar scientists, on the other hand, have been predicting global cooling given the recent extreme lack of solar activity with very good accuracy: http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/peer-reviewed-global-cooling.html http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/peer-reviewed-global-cooli...
- Tamerlin 18y ago
  Agreed. The part you misunderstood is that the mini-ice age doesn't come from cooling, but rather from a lack of convection currents -- it's a result of warming. The same is true of extreme weather; we're getting raftloads of snow out here in the Pacific NW, and considerably colder than usual weather; although it's most certainly not proof, it is consistent with what the weather models predict are side effects of global warming: more extreme weather. I read a few articles about scientist theories relating to solar activity and global cooling; it's interesting and a bit worrisome to think that we might be getting less heat from the sun, and yet warming anyway. :/
  - gibsonf1 18y ago
    "...yet warming anyway" Where is the warming right now? Any recent evidence?

gibsonf1 18y ago

It sounds like your reference is to ideas predicated on melting arctic ice, which is not happening. Everything I've read on co2 theories and models only predicts increased warming, never cooling, so since 1998 the climate reality seems to be diverging with increasing acceleration away from any predictions about co2. The solar scientists, on the other hand, have been predicting global cooling given the recent extreme lack of solar activity with very good accuracy: http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/peer-reviewed-global-cooling.html http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/peer-reviewed-global-cooli...

Tamerlin 18y ago
Agreed. The part you misunderstood is that the mini-ice age doesn't come from cooling, but rather from a lack of convection currents -- it's a result of warming. The same is true of extreme weather; we're getting raftloads of snow out here in the Pacific NW, and considerably colder than usual weather; although it's most certainly not proof, it is consistent with what the weather models predict are side effects of global warming: more extreme weather. I read a few articles about scientist theories relating to solar activity and global cooling; it's interesting and a bit worrisome to think that we might be getting less heat from the sun, and yet warming anyway. :/
- gibsonf1 18y ago
  "...yet warming anyway" Where is the warming right now? Any recent evidence?