What Do We Think About Climate Change

Well, that is a long time ago and to even talk about "climate" in those times as compared to today would be comparing ... Hum ... Apples with leprechaun

Extinction of species is due to inability to adapt to change. The fact that in the last few decades it has become green and fanciful to blame humans (particularly white western and especially Anglo-Saxon) for everything, including climate and extinction of species, the fact remain that extinction is due to lack of capacity to adapt, regardless of cause.

Change is inherent and one of the main characteristics of climate. To assume we can modify it and to pretend that we can have a go at choosing a change or temperature range over another is rather naive and the cause of this thread.

Not only there is no proof that humans are causing a negative and irreversible change as purported by some organisations with political aspirations, but to claim that some form of universal tax will reverse such imaginary trend may be a way to entertain some bearded skinny vegetarian that live in tree houses and pee in a bucket but is a waste of time even considering seriously by anyone that lives in the real world.

As for laptop who do not respond to askii code but Trotsky code, that may the the topic of another post.

 

I am looking forward to that. In fact I have bought a string of cheap property at the foot of the Blue Mountains expecting them to turn into waterfront very soon. I'll make a mint.

 

Define what you mean by "proof".

 

After all the papers by a variety of scientists posted in this thread, supporting the plausability of a inminent coming (or even perhaps already commenced) cooling period, that's a very idiotic opinion, I'm afraid. A new proof of your mostly irrelevant and not useful comments on these matters.
Can we at least pretend to comment with some brains here?

 

Hi Alan. I see you are still around . There is a variety of last post of mine asking for your opinion and help to run some data. Please check and respond, if you are so kind.

 

I'm not sitting in my office, but in my boat spending summer aboard, enjoying the nice weather.

You can -with all right- not to take into consideration my humble opinion, of course. But perhaps -even if you do not agree with them- you should pay a little bit of more consideration and respect to the opinions of some scientists other than Gavin Smith whose work I'm bringing here, who specifically have an expertise in these matters and who know much more than you and I about climate, among them Ole Humlum, who has an specific knowledge about "cold" matters like the Arctic, glaciers, permafrost, etc.


His research interests as per his University page (http://www.unis.no/35_staff/staff_webpages/geology/ole_humlum/olepersonal.htm) -you should have read by now- are:

Glacial- and periglacial geomorphology, with main emphasis on the climatic control on glacial and periglacial geomorphic activity in cold-climate, high-relief areas, past as well as present.

Landforms derived from bedrock weathering in high-relief areas, with special emphasis on rock glaciers.

Climate variability and associated geomorphic response. Reconstruction of Quaternary ice sheets, glaciers and periglacial environments in the North Atlantic region.

Historical and modern climatology (modern data series as well as the use of documentary and early instrumental records for the reconstruction of late Holocene climate) of the Arctic region, the North Atlantic region, including the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Svalbard and Norway.

The impact of climate on societies (human dimensions) in the North Atlantic region.

Comparison and integration of different climate proxy series.

Scientific applications of numerical modelling in geomorphology; e.g. modelling of active layer and permafrost thermal characteristics.

Mapping Arctic and Antarctic surface temperature changes and geomorphic effects during the observational period.

Mapping, monitoring and modelling natural cold-climate geomorphic processes and -hazards.

Permafrost and periglacial processes. International Permafrost Association. (*)

Physical Geography of Svalbard

Snow avalanche risk in Svalbard


Probably he is not as stupid and uninformed as you may think.

(*) P.S.
He co-chairs, with Julian Murton, U.K. and Norikazu Matsuoka, Japan, IPA's Working Group 6 "Periglacial Landforms, Processes And Climate"

 

We supposedly should have found enhanced warming in the high latitudes with increasing CO2. The problem is we don't, as previously commented in post 8711, which included graphs of HadCRUT3 data derived mean temperatures for both Arctic and Antarctic.

Let's now have a look to some specific examples there:

First three graphs are from Hatanga, Suntar and Vanavara stations, Russia. Note that the temperature doesn't seem to be rising very quickly.

Next three graphs are from Amundsen-Scott, Vostock and Mawson stations, Antarctica. Rather a cooling trend there.

Graphs show the max and min temperatures for each year. All values are in degree C.

Last graph shows mean Mawson temperature with CO2 linear trend superimposed, to better realize what we are talking about.


Credit: Glenn R.Morton

 

A new work from Scafetta brings more evidence on extraterrestrial causes of climate changes and the plausible cooling from now till around 2040:

Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications
Nicola Scafetta (Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) Lab, Coronado, CA 92118, USA; Department of Physics, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA)
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issue 13, August 2010, Pages 951-970
Received 7 October 2009;
revised 6 April 2010;
accepted 12 April 2010.
Available online 15 May 2010.

Abstract

"We investigate whether or not the decadal and multi-decadal climate oscillations have an astronomical origin. Several global surface temperature records since 1850 and records deduced from the orbits of the planets present very similar power spectra. Eleven frequencies with period between 5 and 100 years closely correspond in the two records. Among them, large climate oscillations with peak-to-trough amplitude of about 0.1 and 0.25°C, and periods of about 20 and 60 years, respectively, are synchronized to the orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn. Schwabe and Hale solar cycles are also visible in the temperature records. A 9.1-year cycle is synchronized to the Moon's orbital cycles. A phenomenological model based on these astronomical cycles can be used to well reconstruct the temperature oscillations since 1850 and to make partial forecasts for the 21st century. It is found that at least 60% of the global warming observed since 1970 has been induced by the combined effect of the above natural climate oscillations. The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030–2040. Possible physical mechanisms are qualitatively discussed with an emphasis on the phenomenon of collective synchronization of coupled oscillators."


(Bolded is mine)

 

I think it's hot and so does Miss Cillie Goos

 

Scafetta has proposed no reasonable or viable explanation for our climate being "so mysteriously hypersensitive to solar variations," as pointed out by Duffy, Santer and Wigley.

Furthermore, he misrepresents the papers of other researchers to bolster his arguments. For example, he claims a 2004 paper by Gerald North and coworkers 'finds the climate is much more sensitive to solar changes than what climate models predict.'

In reality, North et al find 'a faint response to the solar cycle,' with amplitude 'roughly what we would expect (a few hundredths of a degree), based on simple energy-balance model estimates.'

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/physicstoday2009b.pdf

 

all the papers ?
do you mean the graphs you posted concerning the wrong data set
cause we saw through that one in about five seconds

or did you miss that little bit

now what exactly is it you were saying about temps rising cause the guys who actually study this issue are pretty dam clear about the temps rising like crazy
that and its only reasonable to check the ice extent and see its dropping like a rock as well, and last I checked melting ice is pretty dam indicative of warming temperatures

 

Troy, my darling, for sure you realize you posted a rebuttal from Duffy, Santer and Wigley to a 2008 Scafetta and West work, not to this last I mentioned! Or....perhaps not?

Have you also realized this last paper not only talks Sun?

But anyway, have you considered that such rebuttal from Duffy et al doesn't mean necessarily they are the ones who are right? As a matter of fact I find Duffy et al rebuttal (http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/prway...t1/Solar variability in late 20th century.pdf) rather weak, imprecise, with not well supported assertions and plain misconceptions as the one of CO2 preceding temperature in paleoclimatic records or the solar irradiance having remained constant.

Let's see what Wilson, Principal Investigator of NASA's ACRIM experiments, says:

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.

NASA's Earth Science Enterprise funded this research as part of its mission to understand and protect our home planet by studying the primary causes of climate variability, including trends in solar radiation that may be a factor in global climate change.

The solar cycle occurs approximately every 11 years when the sun undergoes a period of increased magnetic and sunspot activity called the "solar maximum," followed by a quiet period called the "solar minimum."

Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.

Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is the radiant energy received by the Earth from the sun, over all wavelengths, outside the atmosphere. TSI interaction with the Earth's atmosphere, oceans and landmasses is the biggest factor determining our climate. To put it into perspective, decreases in TSI of 0.2 percent occur during the weeklong passage of large sunspot groups across our side of the sun. These changes are relatively insignificant compared to the sun's total output of energy, yet equivalent to all the energy that mankind uses in a year. According to Willson, small variations, like the one found in this study, if sustained over many decades, could have significant climate effects.

In order to investigate the possibility of a solar trend, Willson needed to put together a long-term dataset of the sun's total output. Six overlapping satellite experiments have monitored TSI since late 1978. The first record came from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Nimbus7 Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) experiment (1978 - 1993). Other records came from NASA's Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitors: ACRIM1 on the Solar Maximum Mission (1980 - 1989), ACRIM2 on the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (1991 - 2001) and ACRIM3 on the ACRIMSAT satellite (2000 to present). Also, NASA launched its own Earth Radiation Budget Experiment on its Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) in 1984. The European Space Agency's (ESA) SOHO/VIRGO experiment also provided an independent data set (1996 to 1998).

In this study, Willson, who is also Principal Investigator of NASA's ACRIM experiments, compiled a TSI record of over 24 years by carefully piecing together the overlapping records. In order to construct a long-term dataset, he needed to bridge a two-year gap (1989 to 1991) between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. Both the Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS measurements overlapped the ACRIM 'gap.' Using Nimbus7/ERB results produced a 0.05 percent per decade upward trend between solar minima, while ERBS results produced no trend. Until this study, the cause of this difference, and hence the validity of the TSI trend, was uncertain. Willson has identified specific errors in the ERBS data responsible for the difference. The accurate long-term dataset, therefore, shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present). This major finding may help climatologists to distinguish between solar and man-made influences on climate.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2003/Willson_Mordvinov.html

 

You keep on being a shrimpy unbrained weasel, Boston, by posting that kind of simplenesses.

 

The right-hand figure superimposes the NASA total irradiance on the IPCC (Feb. 2007) temperature plot. This strong correlation illustrates the problem with the models – they need CO2 to accomplish a similar correlation since they do not consider solar irradiance.

 

The following figure is from a 2004 study “Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years”, S.K. Solanki, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schüssler, and J. Beer, (Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Germany, Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory, Finland, Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Germany, Department of Surface Waters, Switzerland) -- Nature, Vol. 431, No. 7012, pp. 1084 - 1087, 28 October 2004) [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html] in which the authors state “the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.”