CreateDebate


Debate Info

26
24
Yay! Wait..., what? No!!!
Debate Score:50
Arguments:60
Total Votes:51
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yay! (22)
 
 Wait..., what? No!!! (19)

Debate Creator

jolie(9803) pic



Global warming is finally ending.

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

 

There will be a "mini ice age" in 2030, solar scientists have said.

 

We are now able to predict solar cycles with far greater accuracy than ever before thanks to a new model which shows irregularities in the sun’s 11-year heartbeat.

The model shows that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent between 2030 and 2040 causing a "mini ice age".

The scientists found magnetic waves in two different layers of the sun’s interior which fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the sun.

“Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 per cent," Professor Zharkova said.

The magnetic wave patterns show that there will be fewer sunspots in the next two solar cycles. Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022 and Cycle 26, from 2030 to 2040 will both have a significant reduction in solar activity.

Yay!

Side Score: 26
VS.

Wait..., what? No!!!

Side Score: 24
1 point

If you believe in global warming and if you have ever told a global warming denier to "eat it," well...., now it's your turn to eat it.

Side: Yay!
5 points

You guys are great. If a scientist predicts heat you say, "scientists don't know what they are talking about". Then when scientists predict cold you say, "those scientists are right on the money"

Side: Yay!
Amarel(5150) Clarified
2 points

Bias does make people do that. Ultimately time will tell and people on one side or the other will have been right, despite bias. Personally, I am biased against predictions in general. Statistically, they are usually wrong. Now that scientists are predicting every possible outcome, I guess I have to get back on board right?...

Side: Yay!
1 point

I take everything people say with a grain of salt.

Side: Yay!
daver(1771) Clarified
1 point

Wonder how the liberal, progressive, tree huggers are going to spin this so that its man caused?

Side: Yay!
1 point

That's actually hilarious. People are just dumb...

Side: Yay!
flewk(1192) Clarified
1 point

Technically, the study by Zharkova makes no mention of ice ages. It was just a study on sunspots.

The climate part was added on by people with agendas.

Side: Yay!
1 point

Oh, oh, like the GW supporters don't have an agenda.

Side: Yay!
1 point

Well this is good news. Florida is way too hot right now .

Side: Yay!
4 points

Well this sucks! Fire up the coal plants!

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
2 points

Multiple lines of research actually predicted this a few years ago. In fact, there was already an announcement made in 2011 that a new solar minimum would occur. You can do a quick Google search to verify this. But the expectation was that we quite possibly should have already been experiencing it.

Solar activity is generally very predictable. Around every 11 years, the sun enters a cycle of increased activity. And then after a while it settles down. If this announcement is in fact accurate, it looks like it's making the already established prediction more precise, not establishing a totally new body of knowledge that contradicts climate science.

That being said, solar activity isn't the primary agent for the current rise in average global temperatures. Multiple lines of independent evidence strongly suggest that human activity is the primary cause and that hasn't changed.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

That article is so sensationalized and misleading. When they say, "The model shows that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent between 2030 and 2040 causing a 'mini ice age'.", what they really should have said is, "the model shows that the number of sunspots will fall by 60 percent between 2030 and 2040 causing global temperatures to fall by 0.162 to 0.468 degrees Fahrenheit." That's right, this "mini ice age" could make temperature plummet by almost half a degree!!! Oh the horror! We're all going to freeze to death!

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

Agreed, the article is terribly misleading. First off the study was on the sun, not the sun affecting our climate. The way they have the study framed though it appears that the 97% accuracy is regarding climate but it is really regarding the solar minimum happening. The media seems to be running with this huge misrepresentation though.

Link to the study.

http://computing.unn.ac.uk/staff/slmv5/kinetics/shepherd etalapj147951_46.pdf

Not only does the study not even address what this maunder minimum means for climate the author of that study who is being quoted (Zharkova) is also a mathematician not a climatologist. Any claims she has about climate should be taken with a grain of salt because she is well out of her expertise. Chalk the confusion up to terrible journalism and loads of confirmation bias from their readers.

When discussing science it is best to view peer reviewed research when possible and there is research on what effects a maunder minimum would have on climate. Climatologists have weighed in on the issue years ago finding the solar minimum to not be really that big a deal, co2 will still be the prevailing force considering climate.

I think this is one of the studies you were using for your numbers.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL042710/abstract

Any assessment that concludes this maunder minimum would be good for climate change or end climate change is neglecting to address things like ocean acidification as well.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

Despite having all the advanced technology to which they referred at their disposal meteorologists and scientists can't forecast the weather accurately much further than 3 or 4 days ahead. In this context I would take this report with a ''dose'' of salts.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

I am sure that some other scientists will produce modelling that proves exactly the opposite.

Life, the universe and everything is far too dynamic to be modeled with such accuracy

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

That "ice age" would be in the arctics not in the Caribbean;even the temperate altitudes would see an immense rise in temperature in 2030

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!