General Climate Discussion

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Angus
Or did everyone forget that there are always spikes in the temp?

One of my problems with the certainty of the GW rhetoric is how do we know a spike is not a century in duration when we are talking timescales of 100,000 years?

[Widewing]

Originally posted by wrag
OOPS I put this up in another thread but maybe I should have put it here?

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/03/01/god-to-gore/

You're right. Since last January, the average global temperature has dropped to the point that the past 100 years of warming has completely reversed. The ice is back in the northern seas, up to 20 cm thicker than three years ago. The northern hemisphere has experienced the greatest amount of snowfall and ice accumulation since 1951.

Russian scientists are saying that this period of sunspot inactivity should last 30 to 50 years, over which the average global temperature may decline to levels of the "mini ice-age" of the 17th thru 19th centuries. Moreover, any warm up would take as much as 200 years to get back to current levels.

One more exceptionally cold year and we can declare global warming (especially the presumed man-made type) over for the foreseeable future.

It looks like the Chicken Little crowd will have to find some new doom to whine about.

My regards,

Widewing

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Widewing
You're right. Since last January, the average global temperature has dropped to the point that the past 100 years of warming has completely reversed. The ice is back in the northern seas, up to 20 cm thicker than three years ago. The northern hemisphere has experienced the greatest amount of snowfall and ice accumulation since 1951.

Russian scientists are saying that this period of sunspot inactivity should last 30 to 50 years, over which the average global temperature may decline to levels of the "mini ice-age" of the 17th thru 19th centuries. Moreover, any warm up would take as much as 200 years to get back to current levels.

One more exceptionally cold year and we can declare global warming (especially the presumed man-made type) over for the foreseeable future.

It looks like the Chicken Little crowd will have to find some new doom to whine about.

My regards,

Widewing

Here everyone goes.  1,000 posts of people telling us that "one hot year doesn't Global warming make...a decade of hotter years doesn't make a trend...And now you declare AGW a hoax from...yep you guessed it.

ONE COLD WINTER.

Nevermind that this "one cold winter" is only "colder" due to the past 15 being inanely warmer. The warmest ten years on record were the last TEN.
So this year is cooler than the warmest ten years on record...

Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
One of my problems with the certainty of the GW rhetoric is how do we know a spike is not a century in duration when we are talking timescales of 100,000 years?

I will agree with you there.  Our scale could be completely off.  Yet with the data sets available to us (roughly 1 million solid years, with sketchy data prior), you must admit there is foundation to the idea.

[Chairboy]

Don't be silly, Moray, anyone who knows global warming must be fake also knows that the world is only 6,000 years old.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Widewing
You're right. Since last January, the average global temperature has dropped to the point that the past 100 years of warming has completely reversed. The ice is back in the northern seas, up to 20 cm thicker than three years ago. The northern hemisphere has experienced the greatest amount of snowfall and ice accumulation since 1951.

Russian scientists are saying that this period of sunspot inactivity should last 30 to 50 years, over which the average global temperature may decline to levels of the "mini ice-age" of the 17th thru 19th centuries. Moreover, any warm up would take as much as 200 years to get back to current levels.

One more exceptionally cold year and we can declare global warming (especially the presumed man-made type) over for the foreseeable future.

It looks like the Chicken Little crowd will have to find some new doom to whine about.

My regards,

Widewing

 Also, the new sunspot cycle JUST STARTED THIS MONTH.  


 MSFC Solar Physics Branch members Wilson, Hathaway, and Reichmann have studied the sunspot record for characteristic behavior that might help in predicting future sunspot activity. Our current predictions of solar activity for the next few years can be found at this link. Although sunspots themselves produce only minor effects on solar emissions, the magnetic activity that accompanies the sunspots can produce dramatic changes in the ultraviolet and soft x-ray emission levels. These changes over the solar cycle have important consequences for the Earth's upper atmosphere.
 

[Angus]

Now, to get this straight, - Sunspots = cooler = less heat from Sun? Or is it the other way around (like the Russians had it)??
So, no we are at the bottom of the curve...which means?

[Angus]

And...
"Although sunspots themselves produce only minor effects on solar emissions, the magnetic activity that accompanies the sunspots can produce dramatic changes in the ultraviolet and soft x-ray emission levels."

So, lots of Sunspots = lots of i.e. Aurora Borealis.

A friend of mine was working on a theory on connecions of solar weather with earths geological activity, as well as gravitational links.
He died from his project, but his theory has been promoted elsewhere,
Moray, PM me if you are interested in knowing more. It was a bit crazy to listen to it at times, but the guy's predictions turned quite solid!!!

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by MORAY37
I will agree with you there.  Our scale could be completely off.  Yet with the data sets available to us (roughly 1 million solid years, with sketchy data prior), you must admit there is foundation to the idea.

Foundation for an idea... sure.  

But we are making treaties and we are sure because we have a scientific consensus and the debate is over: deniers are up there with holocaust deniers and flat earth believers, because we have a foundation for an idea.[/b]

[Angus]

Ahh, flat earth.
Well, they have impressive logics:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

[Angus]

And here is the proof!!!

[Angus]

Jokes aside, of course the sun is the main factor. We have sun + position + atmosphere, - yes position, for the Earth does not orbit completely circularly, it is slightly elliptical, errenous and wobbling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

That little wobble wobble can affect solar input to what, - some 25% I think.
And AFAIK, our greenhouse gases keep us away from being frozen stiff, so their contribution is not to be underestimated.
As for now the Sun is close to an absolute minimum in its short cycle, while in the same time we have the hottest years on record, - but this is just a short cycle, there are many others too, fun isn't it

[crockett]

Originally posted by Shuckins
That report has been getting a lot of play in the media lately.

Essentially, according to one summary, the global drop in temperature during the last two years wiped out all the gains of the last century.  The growth in the size of the Antarctic ice pack has been reported numerous times in the past, and since it is the world's largest, that fact ought to raise some eyebrows.

As some scientists have maintained all along, the earth appears to be at a tipping point, and climate change could go either way.  

RPM, that change, as they have said, could come quickly, if the past is any indication, and within a few years.  So, it is possible that we could see it within our lifetime.

The cooling is due to so much of the ice caps melting. The ice cools the water which cools the climate because of the circulating water. The real question comes in after there is no more ice or not enough ice left to continue or stabilize the warming.

By that time we will either be at the no stop point for global warming as there wont be any ice left.. or all the melted ice will effect the oceans currents and possibly cause an ice age.

Guess we get to wait to see which happens, one thing is for sure the ice is mealting and it's going to cause drastic changes.

[Curval]

"Russian scientists are saying that this period of sunspot inactivity should last 30 to 50 years, over which the average global temperature may decline to levels of the "mini ice-age" of the 17th thru 19th centuries. Moreover, any warm up would take as much as 200 years to get back to current levels."

Well, if the Russians are saying this it will definately get lazs' seal of approval.

Funny, a bunch of socialist scientists say something MAY happen and it is enough to justify GW advocates being chicken littles?

One minute everything socialist is bad...the next minute they say something the right wing hand wringers agree with and they are 100% correct...despite the fact that there is a big (little) word in there.....MAY.

Pure science at its most hilarious.

[lazs2]

It's not just the russians..  more and more scientists around the world are pulling  away from the man made global warming tit.   Latest studies of the last few years of peer reviewed papers on the subject showed that only 7% felt it was man made and of catastrophic proportions..  6% felt we had no effect. the rest felt that our effect varied from "too little data to tell" to "probly some but not enough to matter much".

crock-it..  are you saying that there is less ice on the planet every year?  I think the ice pack is growing everywhere except one small area.

Saying that the reason the planet is cooling is because the oceans are warming is not too easy to understand.  

lazs