LIA, may have had Volcanic contributing factors

Discussions of the Little Ice Age often focus on the Maunder Minimum—a period of low solar activity centered around 1650-1700 AD. While it coincides with the Little Ice Age, researchers have long puzzled over whether the drop in the Sun's output was large enough to cause a significant chill.
Click to expand...

Right there he is misrepresenting the major effects on the Earth from a Minimum. No one is saying the output (total energy) caused it, it's the lack of the protection that the Sun gives out that block the cosmic rays from reaching Earth. With higher cosmic rays reaching the Earth which then generates additional cloud cover. It's the extra cloud level that causes the cooling, just like keeping thick curtains drawn over a window and blocking the Sun's energy from heating the room up. When the Sun is active, the opposite is true, no additional clouds generated by cosmic rays which means the Earth receives more energy causing it to warm.
 
Dammy said:
Right there he is misrepresenting the major effects on the Earth from a Minimum. No one is saying the output (total energy) caused it, it's the lack of the protection that the Sun gives out that block the cosmic rays from reaching Earth. With higher cosmic rays reaching the Earth which then generates additional cloud cover. It's the extra cloud level that causes the cooling, just like keeping thick curtains drawn over a window and blocking the Sun's energy from heating the room up. When the Sun is active, the opposite is true, no additional clouds generated by cosmic rays which means the Earth receives more energy causing it to warm.
Click to expand...
Perhaps there was a change in the Cosmic Rays. I'd think we'd be able to detect a change of half-life in the sediment layers of that period. Do you know of any science that detected Cosmic Ray changes? Be them clouds, or perhaps something was 'off' or 'on' that was/wasn't in the preceeding years.

Similarily we'd be able to see more volcanic material and it's dispersal around the world. If that amount is up and more evenly dispersed it'd be likely caused from larger and/or long term volcanic events. Which also blocks the sun and keeps things from heating up. And it appears at least this piece was likely to have been detected.
 
LIA didn't happen, err, LIA was a minor insignificant event, err, LIA was caused by volcanic activity.
 
@Red,
Science, by it's nature, is progressive. We understand more as we uncover more evidences. Thus, we don't get to jump up and down and claim LIA across the world, unless we have cooresponding evidence. Without that we'd be acting on unsupported faith.

At present the LIA is understood as a primarily North Atlantic event. It appears the cooling other places was less severe. (For example this year we're seeing ice in Venice and 20degree warmer than average temps in the US mid-west and record temps in Australia. So the cooling here is not universal across the globe. Perhaps LIA is similar?) Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of people during the LIA using thermometers across the globe. So, we need to do our best to try and recreate the period from the data we have available. And as more and improved data becomes available our view will become refined.

Your comment made a good example for me. We see Republican Presidential candidates rejecting science. Santorum, for one example, rejects evolution. Perhaps it's a reflection of the 'conservative' mindset. Being a 'conservative' means one doesn't want things to change. One 'conserves' the past. It seems Republicans reject science probably because it's progressive nature. Progressive is building and improving on past knowledge, not stuck in the quagmire of the past.
 
redrumloa said:
LIA didn't happen, err, LIA was a minor insignificant event, err, LIA was caused by volcanic activity.
Click to expand...

LIA was a local/regional event was disho0nestly translated into "LIA never happened" by people PR people trying to muddy the waters and confuse the rubes. In other words "LIA didn't happen" is a straw man.
 
faethor said:
Being a 'conservative' means one doesn't want things to change. One 'conserves' the past. It seems Republicans reject science probably because it's progressive nature.
Click to expand...

"Teach the controversy" and such is a mere dog whistle to the fanatical fringe that can swing a vote and is sufficiently banal enough that it doesn't turn off regular voters. It's not about changelessness, but specifically about pandering to the Christian far right. As for why those guys like to trash evolution, it's simply that they have decided that their faith requires believing every word of the bible is true therefore 6 day creation - nothing else is allowed. Mischaracterizing evolution and then making sure that their kids never understand it is just a way of protecting their religious views, which I suppose is some kind of "conserving" but it's more about conserving the power of the preachers than anything else.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
"Teach the controversy" and
Click to expand...
I agree with you. The problem is they aren't 'Teach(ing) the Controversy' the problem is they intend to give equal time and equal support to an unequal guess. A true 'Teach the Controversy' doesn't happen in the science classroom. It would happen in the Humanities or English - debate, critical thinking and the like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top