Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

"Is a mini ICE AGE on the way?"

814 views
Skip to first unread message

Lynn McGuire

unread,
Jul 10, 2015, 7:21:17 PM7/10/15
to
"Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

You may want to start buying your long underwear soon.

Lynn

J. Clarke

unread,
Jul 10, 2015, 8:12:09 PM7/10/15
to
In article <mnpjuj$aiu$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...
>
> "Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet"
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html
>
> You may want to start buying your long underwear soon.

Personally I am of the opinion that the sun doing something isn't going
to have any noticeable effect. The effects of insolation on climate are
not nearly as simple or obvious as one might think and there seem to be
long lags between changes in insolation and changes in temperature.

On the other hand, anybody who looks at the ice cores and isn't an
_idiot_ (which lets out most climatologists apparently) recognizes that
when the temperature rises it triggers some event that causes rapid
cooling. What that event might be I have no idea and apparently the
climatologists don't either.

So if any kind of ice age starts right about now, I don't think there's
going to be anything "mini" about it--it's going to be the full blown
deal with a mile of ice where Manhattan used to be.

Quadibloc

unread,
Jul 10, 2015, 8:34:09 PM7/10/15
to
On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 6:12:09 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> On the other hand, anybody who looks at the ice cores and isn't an
> _idiot_ (which lets out most climatologists apparently) recognizes that
> when the temperature rises it triggers some event that causes rapid
> cooling. What that event might be I have no idea and apparently the
> climatologists don't either.

One possibility is that global warming could trigger the end of an ocean current
related to the Gulf Stream.

Here's the link:

https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/98jan/climate.htm

John Savard

Don Bruder

unread,
Jul 10, 2015, 10:03:56 PM7/10/15
to
In article <MPG.300a295c4...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Yay! That means there won't be any more idiocy from the advertising
agencies!

BRING ON THE ICE AGE!!! QUICK!!!



(Anybody got a crowbar? I think my tongue's stuck...)

--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

The Starmaker

unread,
Jul 10, 2015, 10:47:21 PM7/10/15
to
This is 2015, they are talking 2030....somebody want 15 years of
government funding....that's all. Do the math.

David Mitchell

unread,
Jul 11, 2015, 1:17:14 AM7/11/15
to
Never, ever, trust anything you read in the Daily Mail.
To call it a tissue of lies is to insult tissues.

The same is true of any UK tabloid, but the Mail and Sun are the worst
offenders.

The Starmaker

unread,
Jul 11, 2015, 1:55:50 AM7/11/15
to
"...according to the results presented by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno."


A woman professor? I never heard of a woman professor before...that's not possible.



"National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno"?



That country is not even on planet Earth!


Valentina???? Zharkova???? you gotta picture of that?

which one is she?
https://www.google.com/search?q=Prof+Valentina+Zharkova&biw=1280&bih=871&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=fq-gVaPGNsa5oQSN0ZzwCA&ved=0CDMQsAQ

J. Clarke

unread,
Jul 11, 2015, 5:50:47 AM7/11/15
to
In article <mnptfi$5jb$1...@dont-email.me>, dak...@sonic.net says...
However it is curious that the majority of advertising agencies in North
America are far enough north that they would be under glaciers at their
typical southernmost advance. Alas, Google is in California, a full
polar melt would be needed to do anything to them.

Quadibloc

unread,
Jul 11, 2015, 9:50:08 AM7/11/15
to
On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 11:55:50 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:

> "National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno"?

> That country is not even on planet Earth!

As it happens, it's a pleasant seaside resort in Wales - so it's not even all
that exotic a location.

John Savard

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,
Jul 11, 2015, 11:00:03 AM7/11/15
to
In article <mnpjuj$aiu$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>"Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun will 'go to
>sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet"

Heavens, I wish it would.
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

Is the _Daily Mail_ one of those British papers like the _Sun_
that aren't worth the paper they're printed on?

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,
Jul 11, 2015, 11:00:04 AM7/11/15
to
In article <ltGdnQczMoRLOz3I...@brightview.co.uk>,
Thank you for confirming my suspicions.

Quadibloc

unread,
Jul 11, 2015, 11:34:31 AM7/11/15
to
On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 9:00:03 AM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> Is the _Daily Mail_ one of those British papers like the _Sun_
> that aren't worth the paper they're printed on?

I suspected that it was, like the Daily Express, another example of a British
tabloid, but I couldn't have supplied the definitive confirmation that another
poster did.

I initially found it rather bizarre that the comics pages of this kind of
British newspaper included things like the (wartime) Jane up to, say, Axa -
because as a North American, I'm used to it being intended that the comics page
is for children, and hence is to be fit for them - and thus not including,
however delightful they might be, drawings of women in various states of
undress.

At least one of the British tabloids - I think it was the Sun - decided that
henceforth, in their print edition (but not the website!) their page 3 girls
would keep their tops covered in future. It's hard to take a publication
seriously in a journalistic sense that appears to be a girlie magazine in the
form of a newspaper.

John Savard

Quadibloc

unread,
Jul 11, 2015, 11:41:08 AM7/11/15
to
On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 9:00:03 AM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <mnpjuj$aiu$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:

> >"Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun will 'go to
> >sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet"

> Heavens, I wish it would.

> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

> Is the _Daily Mail_ one of those British papers like the _Sun_
> that aren't worth the paper they're printed on?

On the other hand, the Daily Mail isn't the Weekly World News - they don't make
up all their news stories for the fun of it.

Thus, there may well be a real solar minimum in 2030 that might, even,
contribute to offsetting some of the bad effects of global warming. Whether
that would be good luck or bad depends on our reaction.

So here's a few credible sources for you, without birds with their kit off:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm
http://astronomynow.com/2015/07/09/royal-astronomical-societys-national-astronomy-meeting-2015-report-4/
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/mini-ice-age-coming-in-next-fifteen-years-new-model-of-the-suns-cycle-shows-10382400.html

Sadly, my search also found some sources even *less* credible than the Daily
Mail on this issue - web sites with an ax to grind in the direction of claiming
this "global warming" stuff is all a hoax by Al Gore sort of thing.

John Savard

Quadibloc

unread,
Jul 11, 2015, 11:52:50 AM7/11/15
to
Not being terribly familiar with the British press scene, I Googled The Independent, and found that it was a serious newspaper, despite being published in tabloid size. As well, I found that one search result I skipped was _also_ a credible source:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html

John Savard

Ted Nolan <tednolan>

unread,
Jul 11, 2015, 11:58:02 AM7/11/15
to
In article <f09e4d7d-7c68-4cbd...@googlegroups.com>,
Just read it for the articles..
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

John Dallman

unread,
Jul 11, 2015, 12:11:31 PM7/11/15
to
In article <f09e4d7d-7c68-4cbd...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca (Quadibloc) wrote:

> I suspected that it was, like the Daily Express, another example of
> a British tabloid, but I couldn't have supplied the definitive
> confirmation that another poster did.

It's easier to list the British newspapers that have have some degree of
honesty.

The Telegraph is right-wing biased, but doesn't outright lie, much.

The Guardian is left-wing biased, but doesn't outright lie, much.

The Independent tries not to have a political bias but is edging
rightward, and is sadly dull.

That's it.

All the others are propaganda sheets for their owners' ideas of what will
make them more money or the world more to their liking. This specifically
includes The Times, which is far subtler in its lies than the Sun, but
has the same political objectives. It still trades on its reputation from
the past, but this has no traction with anyone who knows what it's like
now.

John

Alie...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 11, 2015, 1:49:25 PM7/11/15
to
On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 10:17:14 PM UTC-7, David Mitchell wrote:
> On 11/07/15 00:21, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > "Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun will 'go to
> > sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet"
> >
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html
> >
> >
> > You may want to start buying your long underwear soon.

> Never, ever, trust anything you read in the Daily Mail.
> To call it a tissue of lies is to insult tissues.
>
> The same is true of any UK tabloid, but the Mail and Sun are the worst
> offenders.

You know the flap about science reporters' fail on not investigating the "news troll" research on how chocolate helps weight loss? This must be an instance of the opposite of that. The Daily Mail inadvertently posted a real story:

http://phys.org/news/2015-07-irregular-heartbeat-sun-driven-dynamo.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm

The original source:

http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2680-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo


Mark L. Fergerson

Hägar

unread,
Jul 11, 2015, 2:11:50 PM7/11/15
to


"The Starmaker" wrote in message news:55A0AF...@ix.netcom.com...
*** WOW ... I think it's the second one ... sending chills up and down
my spine ...

The Starmaker

unread,
Jul 11, 2015, 2:59:36 PM7/11/15
to
you looked it up? where's is wales?? Is that where Tom Jones is from?
But, where is wales?

Mark Bestley

unread,
Jul 11, 2015, 5:05:30 PM7/11/15
to
You missed out the Financial Times which only reports some stories but
doesn't outright lie, much. and is financially biased

--
Mark

Mark Bestley

unread,
Jul 11, 2015, 5:05:30 PM7/11/15
to
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 9:41:08 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>
> > So here's a few credible sources for you, without birds with their kit
> > off:
> >
> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm
> > http://astronomynow.com/2015/07/09/royal-astronomical-societys-national-
> > http://astronomy-meeting-2015-report-4/
> > http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/mini-ice-age-com
> > http://ing-in-next-fifteen-years-new-model-of-the-suns-cycle-shows-10382
> > http://400.html
>
> Not being terribly familiar with the British press scene, I Googled The
> Independent, and found that it was a serious newspaper, despite being
> published in tabloid size. As well, I found that one search result I
> skipped was _also_ a credible source:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ic
> e-age-within-15-years.html
>


But also note
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11733731/Met-Office-caught-out-over-its-hottest-July-day-ever-claim.html
on the same page.
It is definiely a paper that would quote anything anti AGW

--
Mark

John Dallman

unread,
Jul 11, 2015, 5:39:53 PM7/11/15
to
In article <1m7eygu.86u9481ujtn90N%news{@bestley.co.uk>,
news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) wrote:

> You missed out the Financial Times which only reports some stories
> but doesn't outright lie, much. and is financially biased

True: I tend to think of it as more a trade paper than a general
newspaper.

John

William December Starr

unread,
Jul 11, 2015, 8:13:05 PM7/11/15
to
In article <ltGdnQczMoRLOz3I...@brightview.co.uk>,
David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> said:

> Never, ever, trust anything you read in the Daily Mail. To call
> it a tissue of lies is to insult tissues.
>
> The same is true of any UK tabloid, but the Mail and Sun are the
> worst offenders.

"A note of explanation for non-British readers. If you read in the
Sun that you're alive, you can be absolutely certain you're dead."

-- Tom Holt, regarding the British tabloid "The Sun"
(rec.arts.sf.tv, 9 Apr 2001)

-- wds

Dimensional Traveler

unread,
Jul 11, 2015, 11:20:04 PM7/11/15
to
*reads* *blink* *blink* ... ROFLMAO

--
Veni, vidi, snarki.

Dimensional Traveler

unread,
Jul 11, 2015, 11:20:04 PM7/11/15
to
Hmmm, move them a bit west and south so they're west of the San Andreas
and then trigger a really big earthquake.... (Frankly, that's probably
more probable than what that article claims.)

--
Veni, vidi, snarki.

Cryptoengineer

unread,
Jul 12, 2015, 12:45:59 AM7/12/15
to
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in
news:55a1db4a$0$36522$742e...@news.sonic.net:
TL,DNR: One team of scientists thinks we'll have another
Maunder Minimum (Mini Ice Age) Real Soon Now.

That's actually not a too implausible notion; solar cycles
have been weakening for decades, as meaasured by sunspot numbers,
and the MM was characterized by low sunspot counts.

BUT: if my very rapid skin of the article was correct, there
should have been other mini Ice Ages going back on a regular
cycle, and we don't see that.

pt

Dimensional Traveler

unread,
Jul 12, 2015, 1:00:05 PM7/12/15
to
A Maunder Minimum, sure, that could happen. It would not, however,
involve a 60% drop in solar output.

--
Veni, vidi, snarki.

Gene Wirchenko

unread,
Jul 12, 2015, 4:50:50 PM7/12/15
to
On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 20:15:18 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 7/11/2015 2:50 AM, J. Clarke wrote:

[snip]

>> However it is curious that the majority of advertising agencies in North
>> America are far enough north that they would be under glaciers at their
>> typical southernmost advance. Alas, Google is in California, a full
>> polar melt would be needed to do anything to them.
>>
>Hmmm, move them a bit west and south so they're west of the San Andreas
>and then trigger a really big earthquake.... (Frankly, that's probably
>more probable than what that article claims.)

ObRASFW: There was a story where the lead character came up with
a way of predicting earthquakes. Near the end of the story, there was
a severe earthquake, and some land slid into sea ...

F
O
R

R
E
L
I
E
F

O
F

P
R
E
M
A
T
U
R
E

S
T
O
R
Y

K
N
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
,

U
S
E

G
E
N
E
'
S

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E
.

... the land EAST of the San Andreas fault.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Greg Goss

unread,
Jul 12, 2015, 7:37:33 PM7/12/15
to
Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote:

> ObRASFW: There was a story where the lead character came up with
>a way of predicting earthquakes. Near the end of the story, there was
>a severe earthquake, and some land slid into sea ...

I've read that story, and it has the feel in my mind of an Asimov or
Niven. I've recently re-read most of Niven and it wasn't there, so
...
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

Robert Bannister

unread,
Jul 12, 2015, 8:45:25 PM7/12/15
to
The one in the 1800s is well documented and surely there was another
about 1200 - the one where the Greenland settlement disappeared and huge
parts of Holland went under water.

--
Robert Bannister
Perth, Western Australia

Dimensional Traveler

unread,
Jul 12, 2015, 11:25:05 PM7/12/15
to
My father was a geophysicist and the joke that everything east of the
San Andreas would fall into the Atlantic was old when I was born. :)


--
Veni, vidi, snarki.

Joseph Nebus

unread,
Jul 12, 2015, 11:40:55 PM7/12/15
to
In <d0gc1q...@mid.individual.net> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> writes:

>Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote:

>> ObRASFW: There was a story where the lead character came up with
>>a way of predicting earthquakes. Near the end of the story, there was
>>a severe earthquake, and some land slid into sea ...

>I've read that story, and it has the feel in my mind of an Asimov or
>Niven. I've recently re-read most of Niven and it wasn't there, so
>...

Ben Bova, 'A Slight Miscalculation'. Reprinted, as so many of
these things were, in Asimov and Jeppson's _Laughing Space_.

--
Joseph Nebus
Math: A Summer 2015 Mathematics A To Z: unbounded http://wp.me/p1RYhY-P3
Humor: Tourism Ends At Home http://wp.me/p37lb5-Ty
--------------------------------------------------------+---------------------

Lynn McGuire

unread,
Jul 13, 2015, 1:44:50 PM7/13/15
to
Very correct. But a 10 F (5 C) drop in the average Earth temperature would cause enormous problems for the human race. Most of
Canada and Alaska would be glaciated.

Lynn

David Johnston

unread,
Jul 13, 2015, 2:18:40 PM7/13/15
to
Only if it lasted for centuries. Glaciation is not the work of an
afternoon.

William Hyde

unread,
Jul 13, 2015, 3:46:54 PM7/13/15
to
The article talks about a sixty percent drop in solar "activity" which I take to mean sunspots and associated phenomena, not a sixty percent drop in solar output.

Such a drop, if sustained, would lead not to a mini-ice age, or a real ice age, but to snowball earth, only colder. If it only lasted a decade a few percent of the human population might survive it.

The idea that the Maunder (and Sporer) minima alone caused the little ice age was a reasonable hypothesis, once, but none of the solar constant change estimates I've seen for it can account for the cooling. The LIA seems to have been at least half due to an abnormally large clustering of tropical volcanoes.

William Hyde



William Hyde

unread,
Jul 13, 2015, 3:57:05 PM7/13/15
to
Five degrees C is indeed quite comparable to the estimated global average cooling at the peak of the last ice age cycle, which is estimated at about 3.5-4.5 C, with some isotope estimates running higher.

Actually, most of Alaska was not glaciated at the peak of the last ice age cycle 21,000 years ago, and probably would not be again. Which is why Alaska has areas with excellent soil, while equivalent areas of Canada do not.

William Hyde

William Hyde

unread,
Jul 13, 2015, 4:11:43 PM7/13/15
to
On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 8:45:25 PM UTC-4, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 12/07/2015 12:45 pm, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> > Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in
> > news:55a1db4a$0$36522$742e...@news.sonic.net:
> >
> >> On 7/10/2015 4:21 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >>> "Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun will 'go to
> >>> sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet"
> >>>
> >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE
> >>> -way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html
> >>>
> >>> You may want to start buying your long underwear soon.
> >>> Lynn
> >> *reads* *blink* *blink* ... ROFLMAO
> >
> > TL,DNR: One team of scientists thinks we'll have another
> > Maunder Minimum (Mini Ice Age) Real Soon Now.
> >
> > That's actually not a too implausible notion; solar cycles
> > have been weakening for decades, as meaasured by sunspot numbers,
> > and the MM was characterized by low sunspot counts.
> >
> > BUT: if my very rapid skin of the article was correct, there
> > should have been other mini Ice Ages going back on a regular
> > cycle, and we don't see that.
>
> The one in the 1800s is well documented

That was volcanic.

and surely there was another
> about 1200 - the one where the Greenland settlement disappeared

The larger east Greenland settlement was still going strong in 1400. Archeology shows that even later in that century they were still getting imports from Europe, doubtless through smuggling.

It's always been thought that the little ice age was associated with the abandonment of the two settlements, but it took a long time. Not a "mini ice age" but a centuries long decline - not entirely unassociated with neglect, restraint of commerce, and at least one episode of excessive taxation by the Norwegian monarchy and the Catholic Church.

Plus, perhaps, British raiders.


William Hyde

Lynn McGuire

unread,
Jul 13, 2015, 5:05:37 PM7/13/15
to
Aren't glaciers formed by winter snow that does not melt in the summer? Sounds like the work of only a year or couple.

Lynn

David Johnston

unread,
Jul 13, 2015, 5:30:33 PM7/13/15
to
A 5 celsius drop in the average temperature up here, not that far south
of the Northwest Territories would be nowhere near what it would take to
ensure that snow would not melt in the summer. Glaciers are actually
formed by less snow melting in the summer than landed on them in the
winter. The high albedo of glaciers makes it hard to melt them, and
that preserves them in the summer to some extent, but they don't grow
quickly.

Lynn McGuire

unread,
Jul 13, 2015, 5:37:27 PM7/13/15
to
Are you assuming that the temperature drop across the Earth will be uniform?

Lynn

William Hyde

unread,
Jul 13, 2015, 6:13:56 PM7/13/15
to
It takes time and pressure (or melting followed by refreezing, but without runoff) for snow to turn to glacier ice, and much time for enough snow to accumulate to even start the process.

People refer to the "instantaneous glacierization" of the Canadian Prairies in the last ice age. But by that they mean it took perhaps as little as a few centuries.

William Hyde



David Johnston

unread,
Jul 13, 2015, 6:41:40 PM7/13/15
to
In a spherical cow sort of way. There is no particular reason to
believe that temperature changes all over Canada would be radically
divergent from the change in the global average or that said radical
divergence would be in the direction of "cold"...at least until the
glaciers start growing enough to increase albedo. But as I said, that
takes lots of time. Note that we've actually already seen this happen
in recorded history and while it led to lousy crop yields it didn't lead
to explosive glaciation.


J. Clarke

unread,
Jul 13, 2015, 6:52:15 PM7/13/15
to
In article <mo1947$bqv$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...
A couple of years is going to give you permafrost, not glaciers.
Glaciers aren't just deep snow on the ground, they're moving ice. Has
to be pretty deep and solidly packed before it starts flowing.

And colder winters might not cause that permanent snow--might not have
any snow at all in fact. Don't assume that cold causes snow--it's
necessary but not sufficient.

The trouble with climate is that it's not simple and the equations are
nonlinear--throwing CPU cycles at them will give you an answer but you
have no idea whether that answer bears any resemblance to reality unless
you have boundary conditions against which it can be checked. And we
don't have boundary conditions, all we have is the middle of the curve.

William December Starr

unread,
Jul 13, 2015, 9:54:31 PM7/13/15
to
In article <0835181e-6b24-4b02...@googlegroups.com>,
William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> said:

> Plus, perhaps, British raiders.

Well I'd heard that they're trying to leave Oakland, but...

-- wds

Cryptoengineer

unread,
Jul 13, 2015, 9:59:03 PM7/13/15
to
William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0835181e-6b24-4b02...@googlegroups.com:
I'd known about the Maunder Minimum most of my life, but
apparently there have been many minimums (they can track them
through isotope ratios in sediments), going back 10,000
years, since the end of the (actual) Ice Age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

None of them led to reglaciation. Even if we
do get the minimum suggested in the OP, it won't
either.

pt

Robert Bannister

unread,
Jul 13, 2015, 10:10:34 PM7/13/15
to
I think it was the writer Rousseau who made a detailed record of the
Rhone glacier. Only thing is, I can't remember whether he recorded its
growth or retreat.

Robert Bannister

unread,
Jul 13, 2015, 10:16:36 PM7/13/15
to
On 14/07/2015 4:11 am, William Hyde wrote:
> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 8:45:25 PM UTC-4, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 12/07/2015 12:45 pm, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in
>>> news:55a1db4a$0$36522$742e...@news.sonic.net:
>>>
>>>> On 7/10/2015 4:21 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>> "Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun will 'go to
>>>>> sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet"
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE
>>>>> -way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html
>>>>>
>>>>> You may want to start buying your long underwear soon.
>>>>> Lynn
>>>> *reads* *blink* *blink* ... ROFLMAO
>>>
>>> TL,DNR: One team of scientists thinks we'll have another
>>> Maunder Minimum (Mini Ice Age) Real Soon Now.
>>>
>>> That's actually not a too implausible notion; solar cycles
>>> have been weakening for decades, as meaasured by sunspot numbers,
>>> and the MM was characterized by low sunspot counts.
>>>
>>> BUT: if my very rapid skin of the article was correct, there
>>> should have been other mini Ice Ages going back on a regular
>>> cycle, and we don't see that.
>>
>> The one in the 1800s is well documented
>
> That was volcanic.

We don't have volcanoes today? Anyway, although Krakatoa changed the
weather for about three years, I didn't think that was related to the
bonfires on the Thames or similar scenes in the Netherlands.

>
> and surely there was another
>> about 1200 - the one where the Greenland settlement disappeared
>
> The larger east Greenland settlement was still going strong in 1400. Archeology shows that even later in that century they were still getting imports from Europe, doubtless through smuggling.
>
> It's always been thought that the little ice age was associated with the abandonment of the two settlements, but it took a long time. Not a "mini ice age" but a centuries long decline - not entirely unassociated with neglect, restraint of commerce, and at least one episode of excessive taxation by the Norwegian monarchy and the Catholic Church.
>
> Plus, perhaps, British raiders.

Yes, I was a bit dubious about my dates there. Warmer periods in Europe
do seem to be associated with periods of prosperity, eg the Renaissance,
although long wars had a debilitating effect on some areas.

William Hyde

unread,
Jul 13, 2015, 10:32:02 PM7/13/15
to
Vulcanism isn't consistent. I can only recall three eruptions in my lifetime with climatic significance - Agung (1960s) El Chichon, and Pinatubo, the latter of which dropped the global average temperature by .2 degrees, IIRC, for some months. In the early 1800s there were more and worse in the 1810s alone.


Anyway, although Krakatoa changed the
> weather for about three years,

A piker compared to Tambora (1815).

I didn't think that was related to the
> bonfires on the Thames or similar scenes in the Netherlands.

Indeed it wasn't, being far too late. But a variety of others did, including even one non-tropical eruption, Laki in 1783.

Volcanic eruptions don't explain the whole of the LIA. (Even were it the entire and complete explanation, our data is sufficiently sparse and incomplete that we could not come to that conclusion.) There was a solar effect and even natural GHG changes may have played a tiny role. But the bulk of the variance seems to be due to volcanoes.


William Hyde

Greg Goss

unread,
Jul 13, 2015, 11:39:54 PM7/13/15
to
The official definition is ice big and heavy enough to move under its
own weight. The snowpatch-in-shadow I'm always amused to find in the
Rockies at the height of summer doesn't count.

Greg Goss

unread,
Jul 13, 2015, 11:47:31 PM7/13/15
to
Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:

>I think it was the writer Rousseau who made a detailed record of the
>Rhone glacier. Only thing is, I can't remember whether he recorded its
>growth or retreat.

When my brother and I visited the base of the arm of the Columbia
Icefields collection of glaciers in 1982, there were signposts on the
driveway in to the glacier showing the edge of the glacier in various
years since 1890 or so. When the highway was built in the 1890s, it
jogged way eastward to clear the base of the glacier, which was a half
mile back or so in the 1980s. When we visited the icefields in 2012,
we didn't drive to the glacier base, so I don't know if the signs are
still there and how much further it's withdrawn since the eighties.

When I used to hike in the Rockies in 1980, the glacier feeding Lake
Louise could be seen from the other end of the lake. Since then, it's
retreated around a corner, and cannot be seen from the hotel end of
the lake.

The border of BC and Alberta is divided between the area that drained
into Hudson's Bay (and thus belonged to a corporation) and the area
that drained into the Pacific, which belonged to a formal colony of
England. Since then, the glaciers on Mount Robson have retreated such
that the entire mountain now drains into BC. Alberta should give BC
back the other half of the mountain.

J. Clarke

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 3:40:39 AM7/14/15
to
In article <XnsA4D6DFA377...@216.166.97.131>,
treif...@gmail.com says...
We are currently in an interglacial period in the ongoing ice age that
started more than a million years ago. The notion that the ice age has
"ended" is terribly misleading.

It is possible that the current warming trend does signal an end to the
current ice age, which would mean return to the much warmer climate that
has been typical on earth for most of its history, however given that it
is occurring at the same time interval as previous temperature spikes
and that those spikes either triggered or were incidental to some event
that triggered the ending of the interglacial, an end to the
interglacial and a resumption of glaciation is the way to bet.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
>
> None of them led to reglaciation. Even if we
> do get the minimum suggested in the OP, it won't
> either.

You're looking at short term events in a long cycle.

Quadibloc

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 9:35:14 AM7/14/15
to
On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 9:47:31 PM UTC-6, Greg Goss wrote:

> The border of BC and Alberta is divided between the area that drained
> into Hudson's Bay (and thus belonged to a corporation) and the area
> that drained into the Pacific, which belonged to a formal colony of
> England. Since then, the glaciers on Mount Robson have retreated such
> that the entire mountain now drains into BC. Alberta should give BC
> back the other half of the mountain.

Borders should be stable, not shifting - thus, the border between the U.S. and
Mexico should depend on the course of the Rio Grande at the time the treaty was
signed, so that every square inch of soil is permanently on one side of the
border or the other, and people can build and plan.

John Savard

leif...@dimnakorr.com

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 9:47:32 AM7/14/15
to
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> Borders should be stable, not shifting - thus, the border between the U.S. and
> Mexico should depend on the course of the Rio Grande at the time the treaty was
> signed, so that every square inch of soil is permanently on one side of the
> border or the other, and people can build and plan.
>

Your building and planning is even _more_ affected by the shifting of the
physical river than by changes in the legal border, so I don't see the point.

--
Leif Roar Moldskred

pete...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 11:01:48 AM7/14/15
to
The Rhone glacier was retreating up till 1777, then advanced until around 1818.
During Rousseau's life, it was retreating, though still far larger than it
is today.

Source: Little Ice Ages: Ancient and Modern, Volume 1 p 165, fig 6.6
By Jean M. Grove, p 165, fig 6.6

Images from 1750 on...
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/04/18/the-rhone-glacier-then-and-now/

pt


pete...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 11:04:25 AM7/14/15
to
That's generally true, but in areas where a river meanders, chunks of land
suddenly find themselves on the other bank of the river when an meander's
neck gets cut.

pt

JRStern

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 11:42:05 AM7/14/15
to
On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 23:45:54 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<treif...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in
>news:55a1db4a$0$36522$742e...@news.sonic.net:
>
>> On 7/10/2015 4:21 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> "Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun will 'go to
>>> sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet"
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE
>>> -way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html
>>>
>>> You may want to start buying your long underwear soon.
>>> Lynn
>> *reads* *blink* *blink* ... ROFLMAO
>
>TL,DNR: One team of scientists thinks we'll have another
>Maunder Minimum (Mini Ice Age) Real Soon Now.
>
>That's actually not a too implausible notion; solar cycles
>have been weakening for decades, as meaasured by sunspot numbers,
>and the MM was characterized by low sunspot counts.
>
>BUT: if my very rapid skin of the article was correct, there
>should have been other mini Ice Ages going back on a regular
>cycle, and we don't see that.

It's probably chaotic. The article assumes two cycles that are
somewhat predictable, but it may be just the opposite, two cycles that
constantly affect each other unpredictably, making any 15-year
prediction very unstable, uncertain. All we really know is the
granularity of solar events runs in about 11-year cycles, with a lot
of variability, like any chaotic/fractal pattern.

J.


>
>pt

David Johnston

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 12:21:15 PM7/14/15
to
In terms of defensibility it's actually wiser to leave the border with
the physical barrier that originally defined it.

John F. Eldredge

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 12:25:38 PM7/14/15
to
Some years ago, I read that a small Mexican town, just south of the Rio
Grande, is now north of the Rio Grande, due to the river shifting to a
different channel. The town is still officially part of Mexico, but all
road traffic has to come and go through the USA, and the US Postal
Service handles mail delivery to the town. Unfortunately, I don't
remember the name of the town.

pete...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 12:52:08 PM7/14/15
to
Don't know about that one, but the Horcón Tract moved from the US to
the Mexican side of the river in 1905, when an irrigation company cut
the meander. Although for all practical purposes the town afterwards was Mexican, the US didn't formally cede the land until 1977. People born
in the zone during the interim were given US legal residence - they had
been born in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Grande_border_disputes

BTW, the border runs not in the center of the river but along
the 'thalweg' - the deepest part of the channel (a new word for
me).

pt


pt

Alie...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 1:00:07 PM7/14/15
to
Land doesn't hold still though; plate tectonics in the long term, erosion and shifting river courses in the shorter terms. (Avoid buying beachfront property; it may not be there the next day but the mortgage will.)

Also consider that the Earth's rotation rate and even the location of the rotation poles is inconstant. What do you use as a datum from which to measure everything else?


Mark L. Fergerson

James Nicoll

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 1:05:08 PM7/14/15
to
In article <d0gc1q...@mid.individual.net>,
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> ObRASFW: There was a story where the lead character came up with
>>a way of predicting earthquakes. Near the end of the story, there was
>>a severe earthquake, and some land slid into sea ...
>
>I've read that story, and it has the feel in my mind of an Asimov or
>Niven. I've recently re-read most of Niven and it wasn't there, so
>...
It's by Ben Bova.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)

Gene Wirchenko

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 1:27:37 PM7/14/15
to
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 03:40:44 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>We are currently in an interglacial period in the ongoing ice age that
>started more than a million years ago. The notion that the ice age has
>"ended" is terribly misleading.

By that definition, what would constitute an end to the current
ice age, and why?

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Lawrence Watt-Evans

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 2:22:41 PM7/14/15
to
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:52:03 -0700 (PDT), pete...@gmail.com wrote:

>BTW, the border runs not in the center of the river but along
>the 'thalweg' - the deepest part of the channel (a new word for
>me).

Hey, cool word! Obviously German, from "thal," valley, and "weg,"
path or way.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Border definitions based on rivers are why there's a piece of Kentucky
that's not connected to the rest of the state, and why Virginia and
Maryland have fought a couple of minor wars. (The border is defined
as the high-water line on the Virginia side of the Potomac -- i.e.,
Maryland owns the river -- but (stupidly) Virginia has the right to
use the water. Virginia keeps trying to use the river in ways
Maryland considers unacceptable.)






--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

lal_truckee

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 3:27:13 PM7/14/15
to
On 7/14/15 10:00 AM, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> Land doesn't hold still though; plate tectonics in the long term, erosion and shifting river courses in the shorter terms. (Avoid buying beachfront property; it may not be there the next day but the mortgage will.)
>
> Also consider that the Earth's rotation rate and even the location of the rotation poles is inconstant. What do you use as a datum from which to measure everything else?

Better (and on-topic) move to an O'Neil colony where none of these
pity-full land issues matter and a property owner an focus on serious
issues, like external impacts.

Wayne Brown

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 5:16:52 PM7/14/15
to
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 13:22:38 in article <mfkaqah3mm7qevsob...@reader80.eternal-september.org> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:52:03 -0700 (PDT), pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>BTW, the border runs not in the center of the river but along
>>the 'thalweg' - the deepest part of the channel (a new word for
>>me).
>
> Hey, cool word! Obviously German, from "thal," valley, and "weg,"
> path or way.

It's also cognate with Old English "dæl" (valley) and "weg" (way).
The sounds represented by d, t and th frequently change places in
Germanic languages (cf. also Gothic "dal," Old Norse "dalr").

--
F. Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net>

ur sag9-ga ur-tur-še3 ba-an-kur9
"A dog that is played with turns into a puppy." (Sumerian proverb)

Lynn McGuire

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 5:18:22 PM7/14/15
to
An ELE of the human race.

Lynn

J. Clarke

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 6:01:52 PM7/14/15
to
In article <9ihaqa5j1nioum03a...@4ax.com>, ge...@telus.net
says...
An _end_ would be the planet resuming its normal temperature, with
shallow seas across the Southwestern US and no permanent polar caps to
speak of.

The first ice age started 2.4 billion years ago and lasted about 300
million years. It occurred right after free oxygen became plentiful and
was possibly related to a reduction in methane. The second one started
720 million years ago and lasted about 85 million years. The third one
startef 450 million years ago and lasted about 30 million year. The
fourth one started 360 million years ago and lasted about 100 million
years. The current one started about 2.6 million years ago and it would
be very surprising if it were to end this soon.

Here's a graph of temperature vs time going back half a billion years.
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png
>

J. Clarke

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 6:02:31 PM7/14/15
to
In article <mo3u85$4m3$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...
Why would resumption of the normal temperature be an "ELE"?

pete...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 6:23:49 PM7/14/15
to
It might well be if we were dumb animals, but humans are nothing if
not versatile in finding ways to deal with varying climates.

However, that's in the case of 'normal' changes in climate, with
changes happening over thousands of years. Even though changes of
a similar magnitude happening over a few decades wouldn't kill us
directly, animal and plant species can't adapt and/or migrate that
fast. This could lead to some changes in the environment which would
be Very Bad News for humanity.

For example, if changes led to the tropical rainforests dying off, it
would significantly affect our oxygen supply. Establishing new ones
would take a couple hundred years, even if we worked very hard at it.

pt

Lynn McGuire

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 6:49:58 PM7/14/15
to
Because wheat does not grow on a glacier?

Lynn

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 6:52:53 PM7/14/15
to
pete...@gmail.com wrote in
news:96a94d8d-8b05-4af5...@googlegroups.com:
I suspect somebody might possibly realize that the goal is to
replace the oxygen producing capabilities, not the rain forest
itself. Which is to say, there are other possibilities.

It's never as simple as the doomcriers want it to be.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 7:02:00 PM7/14/15
to
Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote in
news:mo43js$r60$1...@dont-email.me:
And as we all know, humans simply cannot ever, under any
cirucmstances, relocated to a better environment.

Shawn Wilson

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 7:22:56 PM7/14/15
to
On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 3:23:49 PM UTC-7, pete...@gmail.com wrote:


> For example, if changes led to the tropical rainforests dying off, it
> would significantly affect our oxygen supply.


No, it would not. It HAS happened, the Amazon rainforest is not a permanent feature. And rainforests in general are no more important for oxygen production than any other fertile land. Plants can use the energy in a given amount of sunlight to produce only a given amount of oxygen from CO2.

Gene Wirchenko

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 7:31:56 PM7/14/15
to
On 14 Jul 2015 16:25:36 GMT, "John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com>
wrote:

[snip]

>Some years ago, I read that a small Mexican town, just south of the Rio
>Grande, is now north of the Rio Grande, due to the river shifting to a
>different channel. The town is still officially part of Mexico, but all
>road traffic has to come and go through the USA, and the US Postal
>Service handles mail delivery to the town. Unfortunately, I don't
>remember the name of the town.

I looked for it and could not find it. For kicks, I even checked
Google Maps running all the way from the mounth to El Paso where the
border leaves the river. The river has shifted in many, many places.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 7:48:14 PM7/14/15
to
Well, now I'm convinced that the death of the rain forests would be
an ELE. Cuz Shawn says it won't be.

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:61456ee5-7d3e-4cd8...@googlegroups.com:
Offer's still open, Shawn:

Step one: What is the definition of "economist" that you intend
when you refer to yourself with that word?

*******************************************************************
Hey, Shawn Wilson, you claim to be an economist. I have a challenge
for you:

First, provide us with an objective definition of what you mean by
"economist," when you refer to yourself being one. This will be
discussed, of course, but the definition will be up to you, and
only you.

Once you are happy with your definition of what you mean by
"economist," when you refer to yourself being one, I will set up a
survey on Survey Monkey (or some place else, if you prefer another
service) with two questions:

Do you agree this is a reasonable definition of what makes someone
an economist?

Do you agree that this is an objective definition, which is to say,
one that can be objectively verified.

If the majority of the votes agree that your definition is
reasonable, and objective (50% + 1 on both questions), then we
still proceed to step two:

Since _your_ definition must be objective, it will be possible to
verify it. If, for instance, you claim that a degree in economics
makes you an economist, then it would be easy to verify whether or
not you have one, once you tell us what university awarded you such
a degree. Or, for instance, if you claim that being published in a
peer reviewed journal devoted to economics makes you a journalist,
you tell us which journal and when you were published. But again,
these are just examples. We will be using *your* definition of
"economist," and *only* your definition. If you choose the archaic
dictionary definiton of "one who practices economy," that's fine,
too, because _it is your choice_, and your's alone.

If the survey indicates that people do not find your definition is
reasonable, then you are using the word differently than other
people, and should make a note of that when using it publicly. If
the majority do not agree that your definition is objective, and
verifiable, then your use of it is meaningless, and you should
note that when you use it publicly. (Because, in both cases, I
*will* note it whether you do or not.)

If need be, we can discuss methods of verifying your claim to be an
economist _by your own definition_ here, until you and I agree on a
method that will verify whether your not your claim is true _by
your own definition_.

Once we have a method _that you agree_ will objetively verify your
claim to be an economist _by your own definition_, we can proceed
to the verification process itself. If it involves public
information, like a claim to have been published in a peer reviewed
journal, then you can provide that information here and _anyone_
can verify it. If it involves some information that you want to
keep private, especially something that would require your
permission to a third party, such as verifying that you have a
degree in economics from an accredited university, then you provide
that information to me alone, or to any other party that we both
agree to be an impartial arbitrator (if need be, I'll hire an
attorney to do this), with an explicit agreement that this
information will be kept private, for your protection.

If in the end, you get the majority here to agree that _your_
definition of what makes you an economist is reasonable, and
objectively verifiable, and, in the end, it _is_ verified that you
meet that definition - *your* definition - then I will send you a
US postal money order (good as money, but safer to mail) for at
least $500. If anyone else wishes to contribute to this fund, it
will, perhaps, be even more, and I encourage everyone to contribute
if Shawn accepts my challenge (which we all know he won't, and he
will lie and claim he did). If you don't trust me, then the
attorney
I hire to act as arbitrator can also hold the money in escrow
(where
it would be a criminal offense for him to not pay you if you meet
the conditions, which, remember, will be pubicly available).

So how about it, Shawn? Are you confident enough that you are using
a realistic definition of "economist" when you call yourself one to
_get paid_ to back it up?

I predict you won't even answer this post. I am confident - $500,
plus the cost of an attorney - that you won't accept this
challenge. And confident enough that you won't meet the challenge
that I won't even _ask_ for you to put up a single penny against
the possibility that you fail.

You game? I am.
*******************************************************************

Shawn Wilson

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 7:57:21 PM7/14/15
to
On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 4:48:14 PM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:


> Offer's still open, Shawn:
>
> Step one: What is the definition of "economist" that you intend
> when you refer to yourself with that word?


Step zero- you need to actually put the money you 'promise' into escrow with a reputable attorney in Phoenix.

Because your bullshit is meaningless.

ACTUALLY put the money up with someone I can confirm the fact with, and then we'll talk...

J. Clarke

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 8:12:48 PM7/14/15
to
In article <mo43js$r60$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...
Why would there be "a glacier" if the planet is at its normal
temperature, which is 10-20 degrees hotter than at present?

You're too caught up in these short-term events to see the big picture.

David Johnston

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 8:20:20 PM7/14/15
to
In what way would that be the end of an ice age?


Brian M. Scott

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 8:26:56 PM7/14/15
to
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 21:15:22 +0000 (UTC), Wayne Brown
<fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote
in<news:mo3u5a$4uv$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 13:22:38 in article
> <mfkaqah3mm7qevsob...@reader80.eternal-september.org>
> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:

>> On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:52:03 -0700 (PDT), pete...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> BTW, the border runs not in the center of the river but
>>> along the 'thalweg' - the deepest part of the channel
>>> (a new word for me).

>> Hey, cool word! Obviously German, from "thal," valley, and "weg,"
>> path or way.

> It's also cognate with Old English "dæl" (valley) and
> "weg" (way).

True, though it should be noted that the usual OE word for
'valley' was <denu>. The survival of <dæl> in ME (and
modern literary) <dale> is probably due in large part to
the influence of Scandinavian in the north.

> The sounds represented by d, t and th frequently change
> places in Germanic languages (cf. also Gothic "dal," Old
> Norse "dalr").

None of the cognates actually has the sound /θ/ (/th/).
The old-fashioned German spelling <Thal> of <Tal> has
nothing to do with the sound; it was introduced in the
early modern period in imitation of Greek and Latin models.
The Orthographic Conference of 1901 dropped the excrescent
<h> in native words like <Tal> and <Tür>, keeping it only
in foreign words (e.g., <Thron>, <Theater>) and native
words going back to Proto-Gmc. words with /þ/ (thorn), like
<Thing> 'governing assembly of free people'.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

Lynn McGuire

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 9:36:25 PM7/14/15
to
I thought that the normal temperature of the Earth is an ice ball?

Lynn

William December Starr

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 9:51:39 PM7/14/15
to
In article <mfkaqah3mm7qevsob...@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> said:

> Border definitions based on rivers are why there's a piece of
> Kentucky that's not connected to the rest of the state, and why
> Virginia and Maryland have fought a couple of minor wars. (The
> border is defined as the high-water line on the Virginia side of
> the Potomac -- i.e., Maryland owns the river -- but (stupidly)
> Virginia has the right to use the water. Virginia keeps trying to
> use the river in ways Maryland considers unacceptable.)

It keeps the Supreme Court justices amused at least.

They hardly ever get cases of original jurisdiction.

-- wds

Robert Bannister

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 10:02:23 PM7/14/15
to
On 14/07/2015 11:01 pm, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 10:10:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Bannister wrote:

>> I think it was the writer Rousseau who made a detailed record of the
>> Rhone glacier. Only thing is, I can't remember whether he recorded its
>> growth or retreat.
>
> The Rhone glacier was retreating up till 1777, then advanced until around 1818.
> During Rousseau's life, it was retreating, though still far larger than it
> is today.
>
> Source: Little Ice Ages: Ancient and Modern, Volume 1 p 165, fig 6.6
> By Jean M. Grove, p 165, fig 6.6
>
> Images from 1750 on...
> https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/04/18/the-rhone-glacier-then-and-now/

Thanks for checking.

--
Robert Bannister
Perth, Western Australia

Lynn McGuire

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 10:13:21 PM7/14/15
to
On 7/10/2015 7:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <mnpjuj$aiu$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...
>>
>> "Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet"
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html
>>
>> You may want to start buying your long underwear soon.
>
> Personally I am of the opinion that the sun doing something isn't going
> to have any noticeable effect. The effects of insolation on climate are
> not nearly as simple or obvious as one might think and there seem to be
> long lags between changes in insolation and changes in temperature.
>
> On the other hand, anybody who looks at the ice cores and isn't an
> _idiot_ (which lets out most climatologists apparently) recognizes that
> when the temperature rises it triggers some event that causes rapid
> cooling. What that event might be I have no idea and apparently the
> climatologists don't either.
>
> So if any kind of ice age starts right about now, I don't think there's
> going to be anything "mini" about it--it's going to be the full blown
> deal with a mile of ice where Manhattan used to be.

Nice article from NASA on the 0.1% variability of Sol:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

"Jan. 8, 2013: In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star. While some stars exhibit dramatic
pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1%
over the course of the 11-year solar cycle."

"There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect
on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's
Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet."

To say that stuff looks complicated is an understatement.

Lynn

Robert Bannister

unread,
Jul 14, 2015, 10:22:11 PM7/14/15
to
On 14/07/2015 10:32 am, William Hyde wrote:
> On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 10:16:36 PM UTC-4, Robert Bannister
> wrote:
>> On 14/07/2015 4:11 am, William Hyde wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 8:45:25 PM UTC-4, Robert Bannister
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 12/07/2015 12:45 pm, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:55a1db4a$0$36522$742e...@news.sonic.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/10/2015 4:21 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>>> "Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun
>>>>>>> will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures
>>>>>>> to plummet"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You may want to start buying your long underwear soon.
>>>>>>> Lynn
>>>>>> *reads* *blink* *blink* ... ROFLMAO
>>>>>
>>>>> TL,DNR: One team of scientists thinks we'll have another
>>>>> Maunder Minimum (Mini Ice Age) Real Soon Now.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's actually not a too implausible notion; solar cycles
>>>>> have been weakening for decades, as meaasured by sunspot
>>>>> numbers, and the MM was characterized by low sunspot counts.
>>>>>
>>>>> BUT: if my very rapid skin of the article was correct, there
>>>>> should have been other mini Ice Ages going back on a regular
>>>>> cycle, and we don't see that.
>>>>
>>>> The one in the 1800s is well documented
>>>
>>> That was volcanic.
>>
>> We don't have volcanoes today?
>
> Vulcanism isn't consistent. I can only recall three eruptions in my
> lifetime with climatic significance - Agung (1960s) El Chichon, and
> Pinatubo, the latter of which dropped the global average temperature
> by .2 degrees, IIRC, for some months. In the early 1800s there were
> more and worse in the 1810s alone.
>
>
> Anyway, although Krakatoa changed the
>> weather for about three years,
>
> A piker compared to Tambora (1815).
>
> I didn't think that was related to the
>> bonfires on the Thames or similar scenes in the Netherlands.
>
> Indeed it wasn't, being far too late. But a variety of others did,
> including even one non-tropical eruption, Laki in 1783.
>
> Volcanic eruptions don't explain the whole of the LIA. (Even were it
> the entire and complete explanation, our data is sufficiently sparse
> and incomplete that we could not come to that conclusion.) There was
> a solar effect and even natural GHG changes may have played a tiny
> role. But the bulk of the variance seems to be due to volcanoes.

Fair enough. On whole, I think of volcanoes as being benevolent so long
as you don't live near them. As well as some nasty sulphur, carbon and
halogen compounds, they also release a lot of water and, I think,
indirectly quite a lot of oxygen as well as fertile soil once the
poisonous ash has been washed away. Of course, if it's the wrong type of
volcano, you can end up with a big lava field that's not much use to
anybody, but in most places, people live very close to them, often on
the very sides of the volcano.

Greg Goss

unread,
Jul 15, 2015, 1:00:32 AM7/15/15
to
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

>None of the cognates actually has the sound /?/ (/th/).
>The old-fashioned German spelling <Thal> of <Tal> has
>nothing to do with the sound; it was introduced in the
>early modern period in imitation of Greek and Latin models.
>The Orthographic Conference of 1901 dropped the excrescent
><h> in native words like <Tal> and <Tür>, keeping it only
>in foreign words (e.g., <Thron>, <Theater>) and native
>words going back to Proto-Gmc. words with /ş/ (thorn), like
><Thing> 'governing assembly of free people'.

So how come Neanderthal survived?
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

Greg Goss

unread,
Jul 15, 2015, 1:05:19 AM7/15/15
to
Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:


>Fair enough. On whole, I think of volcanoes as being benevolent so long
>as you don't live near them. As well as some nasty sulphur, carbon and
>halogen compounds, they also release a lot of water and, I think,
>indirectly quite a lot of oxygen as well as fertile soil once the
>poisonous ash has been washed away. Of course, if it's the wrong type of
>volcano, you can end up with a big lava field that's not much use to
>anybody, but in most places, people live very close to them, often on
>the very sides of the volcano.

Jared Diamond points out that fertility of Pacific islands is
extremely correlated with being downwind of reasonably recent volcano
"dusty" eruptions.

Easter Island, off to one side has gone a very long time since its
last refresh of soil fertility.

Lawrence Watt-Evans

unread,
Jul 15, 2015, 1:17:53 AM7/15/15
to
By being borrowed into English; in German it's now spelled
"Neandertal."

Brian M. Scott

unread,
Jul 15, 2015, 1:20:20 AM7/15/15
to
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 23:00:17 -0600, Greg Goss
<go...@gossg.org> wrote
in<news:d0m7nc...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

>> None of the cognates actually has the sound /?/ (/th/).
>> The old-fashioned German spelling <Thal> of <Tal> has
>> nothing to do with the sound; it was introduced in the
>> early modern period in imitation of Greek and Latin
>> models. The Orthographic Conference of 1901 dropped the
>> excrescent <h> in native words like <Tal> and <Tür>,
>> keeping it only in foreign words (e.g., <Thron>,
>> <Theater>) and native words going back to Proto-Gmc.
>> words with /þ/ (thorn), like <Thing> 'governing
>> assembly of free people'.

> So how come Neanderthal survived?

Proper nouns often preserve older spellings. However,
there’s more at work here. When the Neanderthal type
specimen was found, the name of the valley was spelled
<Neanderthal>. It is now properly spelled <Neandertal>,
according to Duden and the official spelling rules, though
quite a few local signs preserve the older spelling. The
scientific name <Homo (sapiens) neanderthalensis>, however,
does not change: taxonomic convention retains the original
spelling at the time of naming.

Joseph Nebus

unread,
Jul 15, 2015, 3:06:36 AM7/15/15
to
Mastery of tools, I'd imagine.

--
Joseph Nebus
Math: A Summer 2015 Mathematics A To Z: unbounded http://wp.me/p1RYhY-P3
Humor: Tourism Ends At Home http://wp.me/p37lb5-Ty
--------------------------------------------------------+---------------------

J. Clarke

unread,
Jul 15, 2015, 6:00:35 AM7/15/15
to
In article <mo4dbv$bv8$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...
I thought I posted a link to a temperature chart showing the temperature
of the Earth over the last half billion years.

No, the normal temperature is not "an ice ball". What ever gave you
that idea? The current glaciation started 2.6 million years ago, prior
to that there had been a roughly 200 million year ice-free period. Over
the 2.4 billion years that have elapsed since the first known
glaciation, there has been ice for only about 500 million, 300 of which
were in that first glaciation.

I think you're conflating the roughly 100,000 year glaciation cycle that
has characterized the current ice age with the normal state of the
planet, which is warmer and ice-free.


Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

unread,
Jul 15, 2015, 7:21:31 AM7/15/15
to
Modeling the Sun's behavior involves magnetohydrodynamics, which is a
branch of physics modeling that routinely brings supercomputer clusters
to their knees.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

unread,
Jul 15, 2015, 7:23:33 AM7/15/15
to
On 7/14/15 7:57 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 4:48:14 PM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>
>> Offer's still open, Shawn:
>>
>> Step one: What is the definition of "economist" that you intend
>> when you refer to yourself with that word?
>
>
> Step zero- you need to actually put the money you 'promise' into escrow with a reputable attorney in Phoenix.


Step -1: You agree to the terms he lays out. ALL of the terms. THEN the
money goes in escrow. You don't agree to meet ALL of the requirements,
there's no point in anyone going any farther, because you'll just do
what you did before; post a definition and run off, claiming victory,
because you have a strange idea that one can win a bet by satisfying
only one of the bet's conditions.

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

unread,
Jul 15, 2015, 7:24:53 AM7/15/15
to
There is no "normal temperature". It varies wildly.

I doubt it's ever been an iceball, though.

Greg Goss

unread,
Jul 15, 2015, 7:39:35 AM7/15/15
to
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>On 7/14/15 9:36 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:

>> I thought that the normal temperature of the Earth is an ice ball?
>
> There is no "normal temperature". It varies wildly.
>
> I doubt it's ever been an iceball, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

unread,
Jul 15, 2015, 8:10:09 AM7/15/15
to
On 7/15/15 7:39 AM, Greg Goss wrote:
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 7/14/15 9:36 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>>> I thought that the normal temperature of the Earth is an ice ball?
>>
>> There is no "normal temperature". It varies wildly.
>>
>> I doubt it's ever been an iceball, though.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
>


I'm aware of the theory, but I'm on the side that doesn't think it's
correct.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,
Jul 15, 2015, 11:57:23 AM7/15/15
to
Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:f76afb10-5ec1-4385...@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 4:48:14 PM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella
> Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>
>> Offer's still open, Shawn:
>>
>> Step one: What is the definition of "economist" that you intend
>> when you refer to yourself with that word?
>
>
> Step zero- you need to actually put the money you 'promise' into
> escrow with a reputable attorney in Phoenix.

Doing so without your definition of economist, and your proposed
test of whether or not it applies to you, presented and accepted,
would be a waste of money.
>
> Because your bullshit is meaningless.

You have a *long* history of lying. You have something to prove.
>
> ACTUALLY put the money up with someone I can confirm the fact
> with, and then we'll talk...
>
Even if I did, you still wouldn't provide your definition of
"economist" as it applies to you when you call yourself one, and
everyone knows it. You aer a proven - admitted - liar and fraud,
and a craven coward. You know you're full of shit, and you know the
only way you'll ever see that much money in one place at one time
is to roll drunks for it. That's why you will *never* *ever* back
up your bullshit claims.

Offer's still open, Shawn:

Step one: What is the definition of "economist" that you intend
when you refer to yourself with that word?

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,
Jul 15, 2015, 11:58:23 AM7/15/15
to
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
news:mo5fos$ho7$2...@dont-email.me:

> On 7/14/15 7:57 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 4:48:14 PM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella
>> Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Offer's still open, Shawn:
>>>
>>> Step one: What is the definition of "economist" that you
>>> intend when you refer to yourself with that word?
>>
>>
>> Step zero- you need to actually put the money you 'promise'
>> into escrow with a reputable attorney in Phoenix.
>
>
> Step -1: You agree to the terms he lays out. ALL of the
> terms. THEN the
> money goes in escrow. You don't agree to meet ALL of the
> requirements, there's no point in anyone going any farther,
> because you'll just do what you did before; post a definition
> and run off, claiming victory, because you have a strange idea
> that one can win a bet by satisfying only one of the bet's
> conditions.
>
And he hasn't even done *that*. He has steadfastly refused to even
provide a definition to the word. The reason being, he can't, without
admitting he's full of shit.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,
Jul 15, 2015, 12:02:32 PM7/15/15
to
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
news:mo5fra$ho7$3...@dont-email.me:
It's like "average rainfall" in California. Some years are *way*
less, some years are *way* more, but it's never near the average.
>
> I doubt it's ever been an iceball, though.
>
It's commonly accepted that it was for, as dumbass says, for 300
million years.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,
Jul 15, 2015, 12:03:03 PM7/15/15
to
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
news:mo5ig7$re4$2...@dont-email.me:

> On 7/15/15 7:39 AM, Greg Goss wrote:
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/14/15 9:36 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>>> I thought that the normal temperature of the Earth is an ice
>>>> ball?
>>>
>>> There is no "normal temperature". It varies wildly.
>>>
>>> I doubt it's ever been an iceball, though.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
>>
>
>
> I'm aware of the theory, but I'm on the side that doesn't
> think it's
> correct.
>
Let's as Shawn. Then we'll know for certain what isn't true.

Shawn Wilson

unread,
Jul 15, 2015, 1:14:12 PM7/15/15
to
On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 4:23:33 AM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:


> > Step zero- you need to actually put the money you 'promise' into escrow with a reputable attorney in Phoenix.
>
>
> Step -1: You agree to the terms he lays out.



No, step zero is to establish that a legitimate offer even exists, and frankly no legitimate offer does exist. Without that...

So you can play all the games you want. But it's all just bullshit on your part until money is actually on the table.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages