What Do We Think About Climate Change

What do we think of Climate Change?

 

The guy definitely needs to cut back on the Metamucil.

 

Colder winters in Europe?

Prepare yourself, Perry! And you too, Knut!


Environ. Res. Lett. 5 (April-June 2010) 024001
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024001

Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity?

(Full text available on-line)

M Lockwood1,2, R G Harrison1, T Woollings1 and S K Solanki3,4

1 Space Environment Physics Group, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Earley Gate, PO Box 243, Reading RG6 6BB, UK
2 Space Science and Technology Department, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Campus, Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0QX, UK
3 MPI für Sonnensystemforschung, Max-Planck-Straße 2, 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
4 School of Space Research, Kyung Hee University, Yongin, Gyeonggi 446-701, Korea

E-mail: m.lockwood@reading.ac.uk

Received 12 March 2010
Accepted 31 March 2010
Published 14 April 2010

Abstract.
Solar activity during the current sunspot minimum has fallen to levels unknown since the start of the 20th century. The Maunder minimum (about 1650–1700) was a prolonged episode of low solar activity which coincided with more severe winters in the United Kingdom and continental Europe. Motivated by recent relatively cold winters in the UK, we investigate the possible connection with solar activity. We identify regionally anomalous cold winters by detrending the Central England temperature (CET) record using reconstructions of the northern hemisphere mean temperature. We show that cold winter excursions from the hemispheric trend occur more commonly in the UK during low solar activity, consistent with the solar influence on the occurrence of persistent blocking events in the eastern Atlantic. We stress that this is a regional and seasonal effect relating to European winters and not a global effect. Average solar activity has declined rapidly since 1985 and cosmogenic isotopes suggest an 8% chance of a return to Maunder minimum conditions within the next 50 years (Lockwood 2010 Proc. R. Soc. A 466 303–29): the results presented here indicate that, despite hemispheric warming, the UK and Europe could experience more cold winters than during recent decades.

 

bla bla bla

another non issue that we have covered before

would you care to direct the readers back to the point in the thread where this has been addressed or would you prefer to act like this is the first time we have discussed the solar flair cycle

cheers
B

 

Boston,
Your comments are so biased and irreflexive you didn't even realize this last study I cited is from scientists in the "warmist" camp, let me call it like that for the benefit of simplicity. It would be very nice if you could think a little bit before posting, as I have asked you several times. I'm stupid doing this because you just behave like a scatterbrained GWA fanatic, I know, but I'm an "anthropogenic optimist" and do not abandon the hope of sometime bringing you to some kind of intelligent and useful discussion.

Cheers.

 

Boston is trying to drag you down to his level so he will have the upper hand, experientially.

 

"Even when we take CO2 into account using our best understanding of how it operates a

http://www.physorg.com/news198429352.html

A Puzzling Collapse of Earth's Upper Atmosphere
July 15, 2010 by Dr. Tony Phillips



Layers of Earth's upper atmosphere. Credit: John Emmert/NRL.
NASA-funded researchers are monitoring a big event in our planet's atmosphere. High above Earth's surface where the atmosphere meets space, a rarefied layer of gas called "the thermosphere" recently collapsed and now is rebounding again.
Ads by Google
Carbon Dioxide Emissions - Learn how to save 30% off your energy costs from the experts! - schneider-electric.com
Go Solar This Summer - Solar Lease Makes Solar Affordable. $0 Money Down / Low Monthly Payment - www.SolarCity.com/FreeSolarQuote

"This is the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years," says John Emmert of the Naval Research Lab, lead author of a paper announcing the finding in the June 19th issue of the Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). "It's a Space Age record."
The collapse happened during the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009—a fact which comes as little surprise to researchers. The thermosphere always cools and contracts when solar activity is low. In this case, however, the magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.
"Something is going on that we do not understand," says Emmert.
The thermosphere ranges in altitude from 90 km to 600+ km. It is a realm of meteors, auroras and satellites, which skim through the thermosphere as they circle Earth. It is also where solar radiation makes first contact with our planet. The thermosphere intercepts extreme ultraviolet (EUV) photons from the sun before they can reach the ground. When solar activity is high, solar EUV warms the thermosphere, causing it to puff up like a marshmallow held over a camp fire. (This heating can raise temperatures as high as 1400 K—hence the name thermosphere.) When solar activity is low, the opposite happens.
Lately, solar activity has been very low. In 2008 and 2009, the sun plunged into a century-class solar minimum. Sunspots were scarce, solar flares almost non-existent, and solar EUV radiation was at a low ebb. Researchers immediately turned their attention to the thermosphere to see what would happen.



These plots show how the density of the thermosphere (at a fiducial height of 400 km) has waxed and waned during the past four solar cycles. Frames (a) and (b) are density; frame (b) is the sun's radio intensity at a wavelength of 10.7 cm, a key indicator of solar activity. Note the yellow circled region. In 2008 and 2009, the density of the thermosphere was 28% lower than expectations set by previous solar minima. Credit: Emmert et al. (2010), Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L12102.


How do you know what's happening all the way up in the thermosphere?

Emmert uses a clever technique: Because satellites feel aerodynamic drag when they move through the thermosphere, it is possible to monitor conditions there by watching satellites decay. He analyzed the decay rates of more than 5000 satellites ranging in altitude between 200 and 600 km and ranging in time between 1967 and 2010. This provided a unique space-time sampling of thermospheric density, temperature, and pressure covering almost the entire Space Age. In this way he discovered that the thermospheric collapse of 2008-2009 was not only bigger than any previous collapse, but also bigger than the sun alone could explain.
One possible explanation is carbon dioxide (CO2).
When carbon dioxide gets into the thermosphere, it acts as a coolant, shedding heat via infrared radiation. It is widely-known that CO2 levels have been increasing in Earth's atmosphere. Extra CO2 in the thermosphere could have magnified the cooling action of solar minimum.
"But the numbers don't quite add up," says Emmert. "Even when we take CO2 into account using our best understanding of how it operates as a coolant, we cannot fully explain the thermosphere's collapse."

An NCAR video shows how carbon dioxide warms the lower atmosphere, but cools the upper atmosphere.
According to Emmert and colleagues, low solar EUV accounts for about 30% of the collapse. Extra CO2 accounts for at least another 10%. That leaves as much as 60% unaccounted for.
In their GRL paper, the authors acknowledge that the situation is complicated. There's more to it than just solar EUV and terrestrial CO2. For instance, trends in global climate could alter the composition of the thermosphere, changing its thermal properties and the way it responds to external stimuli. The overall sensitivity of the thermosphere to solar radiation could actually be increasing.
"The density anomalies," they wrote, "may signify that an as-yet-unidentified climatological tipping point involving energy balance and chemistry feedbacks has been reached."
Or not.
Important clues may be found in the way the thermosphere rebounds. Solar minimum is now coming to an end, EUV radiation is on the rise, and the thermosphere is puffing up again. Exactly how the recovery proceeds could unravel the contributions of solar vs. terrestrial sources.
"We will continue to monitor the situation," says Emmert.



More information: Emmert, J. T., J. L. Lean, and J. M. Picone (2010), Record-low thermospheric density during the 2008 solar minimum, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L12102.
Source: Science@NASA

 

actually my comments were in regards to us having discussed this before, and that conversation having resulted in once again showing that solar activity is not responsible for the recent warming in conjunction with recent increases in co2

that and the importance of letting the readers know that one of the most common tactics of the deniers camp is to bring up the same subjects over and over even though they have been thoroughly refuted even in the recent past. Simply put, prevaricating.

just saying
all the complaints in the world do not negate the realities of this thread, you and a few others have made deliberate and unashamed attempts to deceive the readers with agnotology.

 

Warmnotology, formerly warmnatology, is a neologism for the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt on climate change, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. The term was coined by Guillermo M. Gefaell a Boatdesign.net contributor specializing in the banging on the head of some stubborn real world denialists and IPCC computer models believers. Its name derives from the Neoclassical Greek words ζεστός, warm, ἄγνωσις, agnōsis, "not knowing" (confer Attic Greek ἄγνωτος "unknown"), and -λογία, -logia. More generally, the term also highlights the increasingly common condition where less understanding on climate subjects makes one more certain than before.

A prime example of the deliberate production of climate ignorance cited by Gefaell is the GWA conspiracy to manufacture data about the climate depending on antropogenic CO2. Under the banner of science, a group of poor practice scientists and some enviromentalist lobbies produced biased climate research about everything except global cooling hazards, to exploit public fears about GW and thus fulfill a political and economical interests agenda. Some of the root causes for culturally-induced ignorance are media neglect, corporate or governmental secrecy and suppression, document destruction, and myriad forms of inherent or avoidable culturopolitical selectivity, inattention, and forgetfulness."

We can play this idiots game till exhaustion. You choose.

Going sailing. Nice weekend everybody.

 

my point is that the readers have a right to know and rather than present them with truthful information you present things like this, which I might thank you for presenting cause its classic example from conspiracy/deniers camp. In short your making things up again, which is a common enough tactic of Agnatology but a finer example I could not have asked for.

I was not aware that Warmnatology was an established scientific concept

are you able to identify a single accredited university that is teaching this concept as fact
are you able to identify a single published language reference guide that lists this term and its definition

do you really think the readers missed that your chalking it all up to some mythical centuries long conspiracy again.

sorry Rick but its you who are being caught out in literally every post
as the English say

the truth will out

safe sailing mate
B

 

Buen fin de semana, Guillermo.

 

the constant attempts to politicize the science is obvious as is the constant mention of the word conspiracy in the basic deniers rhetoric

mocking the scientific study of disinformation by imagining a conspiracy and pretending that politics stretches back hundreds of years to the advent of climate research is simply ludicrous

sorry but the truth will out Guillermo
the truth will out
the deniers diatribe has been consistently weighed, measured, and in every case found wanting. Just because the case in point is concerning solar influences on weather does not negate the effect of fossil fuel based CO2 on the atmospheric chemistry, and no where in that article does it suggest so. You are once again misleading the readers by presenting data which does not support the denialist view as if it does. Thus the term Agnotology was properly applied.

I understand that certain deniers might be upset by the constant exposure of there tricks and deceptive presentation of data but once again
the readers have a right to know

cheers
B

 

It's like playing 'Whack A Mole,' Boston. You knock one conspiracy claim down, and another one pops up out of another hole. While you're getting that one and its brother, the original one comes to and sticks its head up again....

 

This is a blatant attempt to scientize the politics.