View Poll Results: Shall we change the name of the thread to "The Death of the Global Warming Myth"?

Voters
3. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    3 100.00%
  • no

    0 0%
Page 23 of 30 FirstFirst ... 13192021222324252627 ... LastLast
Results 441 to 460 of 597

Thread: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

  1. #441
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    Just a few more notes here. These are all from Time Magazine in the 1970s:

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...910467,00.html
    Science: Another Ice Age?

    Monday, Nov. 13, 1972





    The arrival of another ice age has long been a chilling theme of science fiction. If the earth's recent history is any clue, says Marine Geologist Cesare Emiliani of the University of Miami, a new ice age could become a reality.
    Writing in Science, Emiliani reports that the earth has undergone at least eight periods of extreme cold and seven of torrid heat in the past 400,000 years. His conclusion is based on cores of ocean sediment from the Caribbean. Composed of the remains of tiny sea animals, the layered sediment provides a record of climatic changes. When the oceans warm up,...

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...944914,00.html


    Another Ice Age?

    Monday, June 24, 1974





    In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have...

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...918621,00.html

    The Nation: FORECAST: UNSETTLED WEATHER AHEAD

    Monday, Jan. 31, 1977





    After carefully studying woolly bear caterpillars, the thickness of fur on squirrels' tails and other natural signs, "Abe Weatherwise" late last year predicted in The Old Farmers'Almanac that the current winter would be a cold one. Jerome Namias, a meteorologist at California's Scripps Institution of Oceanography, had made a similar forecast. But even Namias is surprised at the subfreezing temperatures that have prevailed over most of the eastern half of the U.S. Says he: "I was a little too conservative. Our forecast was for the coldest winter in perhaps 20 years, but it...
    In 1978:


    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...916402,00.html



    Science: Warming Earth?

    Monday, Sept. 18, 1978





    CO2 may change world climate
    Nature could hardly have created anything that seems more innocuous. An invisible and odorless gas, carbon dioxide is a simple molecular linkup of just a single atom of carbon and two atoms of oxygen (CO2). It constitutes a mere fraction of the atmosphere (.03% vs. about 78% for nitrogen and 20% for oxygen) but becomes dangerous to man and other air-breathing creatures when it accumulates in concentrations higher than 10% as, say, at the bottom of deep wells or mine shafts.
    Yet CO2 is vitally important to the earth's wellbeing....






    Basically, I believe that was a fake Time cover (one of them, didn't look the other one up). You can get to time.com and look over their stuff. If you want the whole article you have to subscribe, something I won't do now. I used to subscribe to Time when I first joined the military - so I got magazines from 1976-1982 or so. And we got it at my home in Detroit long before that for many years.

    I "fell for" the hype of "Ice Age" back then. I remember ARGUING with people that it was going to happen and had logical (I thought) reasons at the time. Now... forty years later, I'm wiser.

    I don't believe any of this crap any more. I'll believe it WHEN I SEE IT HAPPEN.

    Therefore ANY "taxes" on my gas consumption or anything else are WRONG and I'll fight them every step of the way.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  2. #442
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,425
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth


    Obama: No ‘Patience’ For Climate Skeptics

    May 30, 2013

    President Obama, echoing his new Energy secretary’s recent comments, said late Wednesday that he’s open to new climate policy ideas but has no interest in battling over whether climate change is real.

    “If I’ve got somebody who has a different approach to dealing with climate change — I don’t have much patience for people who deny climate change, but if you’ve got creative approaches, market-based approaches, tell me about them,” Obama said at a Democratic fundraiser in Chicago.

    “If you think I’m doing it the wrong way, let me know. I’m happy to work with you,” he added at one of two fundraisers for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

    Obama has vowed to take new executive actions on global warming if Congress doesn’t move ahead with a major climate bill, which is unlikely to occur.

    The president’s comments are similar to remarks by new Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz last week.

    “Let me make it very clear that there is no ambiguity in terms of the scientific basis calling for a prudent response on climate change,” Moniz said during wide-ranging remarks after his swearing-in on May 21. “I am not interested in debating what is not debatable.”

    But Obama may have invited fresh debate Wednesday by noting, “We also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago.”

    Surface air temperatures have increased more slowly than predicted over the last 10 to 15 years, leading to ongoing analysis among scientists of reasons why, such as the role of oceans in heat uptake and other factors.

  3. #443
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    Keep digging Obama. There is NO CLIMATE CHANGE.

    I'm not a "skeptic" I'm a BELIEVER in NO CLIMATE CHANGE.

    I guess you're just going to have to come to grips with that, aren't you?
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  4. #444
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    Junk Science Week: Epic climate model failure

    Roy Spencer, Special to Financial Post | 13/06/13 8:28 AM ET




    Nearby is a running graph of 5-year averages for the tropical tropospheric temperature, climate models versus observations. In all, 73 climate models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project are plotted against observations so that their respective 1979-2012 trend lines all intersect in 1979, which we believe is the most meaningful way to simultaneously plot the models’ results for comparison to the observations.


    In my opinion, the day of reckoning has arrived. The modellers and the IPCC have willingly ignored the evidence for low climate sensitivity for many years, despite the fact that some of us have shown that simply confusing cause and effect when examining cloud and temperature variations can totally mislead you on cloud feedbacks. The discrepancy between models and observations is not a new issue … just one that is becoming more glaring over time.






    It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the coming years. I frankly don’t see how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change can keep claiming that the models are “not inconsistent with” the observations. Any sane person can see otherwise.


    If the observations in this graph were on the UPPER (warm) side of the models, do you really believe the modelers would not be falling all over themselves to see how much additional surface warming they could get their models to produce?



    Hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone into the expensive climate modelling enterprise has all but destroyed governmental funding of research into natural sources of climate change. For years the modelers have maintained that there is no such thing as natural climate change … yet they now, ironically, have to invoke natural climate forces to explain why surface warming has essentially stopped in the last 15 years!


    Forgive me if I sound frustrated, but we scientists who still believe that climate change can also be naturally forced have been virtually cut out of funding and publication by the “humans-cause-everything-bad-that-happens” juggernaut. Members of the public who fund their work will not stand for their willful blindness much longer.


    Roy Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. This note is adapted from his blog www.drroyspencer.com
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  5. #445
    Super Moderator Malsua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,980
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    Members of the public who fund their work will not stand for their willful blindness much longer.
    I've been there for a while Roy, I just don't happen to have any ability to affect where climate change dollars go.
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
    -- Theodore Roosevelt


  6. #446
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    “‘Power of ridicule’ – New weapon against climate deniers”
    Tweet

    They shamed you with a racism that wasn’t yours but that nevertheless belonged to “your heritage”, so why shouldn’t they believe they can shame you into following the faux-scientific, global wealth redistribution plan cooked up by transnational progressivists and “enforced” but zealous, ill-informed true believers, liberal status seekers, and other various and sundry useful idiots?

    SPI:

    As President Obama readies his program to curb greenhouse gases, climate change action advocates are rolling out a new strategy for controlling verbal emissions by climate change deniers — turning allies of Big Oil and Big Coal into national laughingstocks.

    “The power of ridicule should be deployed here,” said Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii. “You have to get to the point where a major candidate for public office is disqualified when he or she denies climate science.” Schatz was speaking to the annual Netroots Nation conference of progressive bloggers.

    Jon Carson, head of Organizing for Action — the group formed as an issue-based successor to the Obama presidential campaign — put it this way: “When a Republican or a Democrat says something crazy on climate, we should be ready to hold them accountable as progressives did on human biology.”

    The “War on Women” became a great 2012 selling point for Obama and the Democrats, helped in no part by Republican politicians’ intemperate remarks about rape.

    Yes, it did. And why? Because Republicans tripped over each other in a mad rush to publicly distance themselves from the way they knew the Left and their media arm would portray certain comments — rather than laughing at what was clearly a cynical attempt to paint certain candidates as somehow “anti- women” by taking their comments either out of context or without allowing for elaboration, as if an utterance is fixed forever in the context they decide to grant it.

    And now here you go. You reap what you sow, textualists, in the form of what to the left is now a proven strategy: separate out those who wish to be seen as the good ones, the intelligent ones, the nuanced ones, the reasonable ones by demonizing and ridiculing the rest. After all, who wants to be called anti-science?

    Time after time we’ve had our chances to stand up to this tactic. And time after time we buckle and take counsel that suggests we monitor our words more solicitously, take care with our phrases, remain “realistic” about how the left will use our utterances and try to speak in the broadest, least controversial terms possible, speak only in bites that cannot possibly be misconstrued — almost always intentionally so.

    Since this site’s inception I’ve preached the dangers of such a willingness to cede the moral / logical / political ground on language. For my troubles, I’m on the fringes these, while those who agreed to cede ground — it’s the pragmatic, realistic thing to do, you see — run our messaging and collect our awards and tributes.

    How’s that working out for us?

    But I digress:

    Obama is likely to unveil a national plan to reduce carbon pollution, concentrating on cutting carbon emissions from power plants. Coal-burning power plants are America’s largest source of greenhouse gas releases into the atmosphere. The President will use his executive authority under the Clean Air Act.

    “The President doesn’t just have the authority to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act, he is required to,” said Sen. Schatz.

    Still, opposition from the carbon economy and its defenders — e.g. the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — is expected to be intense. Climate change deniers have borrowed a page from Big Tobacco’s protracted, four-decade battle against the 1964 Surgeon General’s report that smoking causes cancer.

    The tobacco companies pursued a three-pronged strategy: a) They created and and laundered money through groups with impressive names; b) The front groups were used to create doubt about evidence of a cancer-smoking link; c) Scientists, nicknamed “biostitutes,” were hired to make the industry’s arguments.

    “Some of the very same scientists who are denying the human causes of climate change were denying health impacts of tobacco years ago,” said Dr. Michael Mann, who heads the Earth System Climate Center at Penn State University. Mann notes that R.J. Reynolds spent $70 million to create a cancer-questioning institute.

    [...]

    Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, and longtime defender of the Clean Air Act — and longtime advocate of curbs on tobacco advertising — has witnessed effectiveness of the climate deniers’ campaign.

    “I’ve never seen such a disconnect in Congress between science and needed public policy,” Waxman said. “My colleagues argue things we used to hear in the tobacco debate, that the science is unclear. They are science deniers who are denying the opportunity to educate themselves.”

    So, strategists and advocates for Obama’s climate program will be rolling out such gems as Sarah Palin’s declaration: “Those global warming studies are a bunch of snake oil science.” Or this from House Science Committee chairman Rep. Ralph Hall: “I’m really more fearful of freezing.”

    Progressives have seen several of their movements “go viral” in the past year, same-sex marriage and the need for immigration reform as prime examples. It hasn’t happened — yet — with climate . . . despite global heat waves, “superstorms,” melting glaciers and shrinking snow packs, the shrinking Arctic ice pack, dying forests, and “drunken trees.”

    “We have a congressional leadership in the House that denies climate exchange even exists,” said Mann.

    Perhaps it will pay public dividends to humor them. Their attitudes are no laughing matter.

    First, I can’t tell: is this supposed to be a news piece?

    Secondly, and here’s the easy answer to this risible attempt to connect global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers, I don’t deny climate. That’s like denying air. Or gravity. Or progressive malfeasance. It’s nonsensical.

    What I deny is that human exhalation is a carcinogen. Because the end point of that argument is that humans are the cause of cancer, that plants that produce oxygen from our CO2 exhalation are complicit in an attempt to keep us breathing so that we can produce the very carcinogen that will destroy the earth and its inhabitants.

    That is, the whole of evolution, the biosphere, etc. is on a suicide mission, and only Obama and a bunch of progressives can save it from itself.

    That’s what needs to be ridiculed.

    And here’s how I propose doing it: answer every attempt at “ridicule” over your status as a “climate denier” with the following curt response: “If Obama really wants to put an end to global warming, maybe he should sic the IRS and the NSA on it.”

    A “oh, and by the way, go fuck yourself with redwood stump, Commie” is entirely optional.

    (h/t Darleen)

    Because tell me: do you see the GOP standing up to this kind of organized pressure?

    Yeah, me neither.
    - See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=49809#sthash.N4JPFHmn.dpuf
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  7. #447
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    So, here's an interesting article. You might ask "How is this related to global warming again?"

    Read it and I'll highlight the pertinent parts.

    Underwater Forest off Alabama Coast Uncovered by Katrina is 50,000 Years Old (VIDEO)
    Posted by Russell Westerholm (r.westerholm@universityherald.com) on Jul 09, 2013 01:15 PM EDT

    An underwater forest off the coast of Alabama has been calculated to be much older than previously thought, AL.com reported.





    According to the firsthand report by diver Ben Raines, an Alabama environmental journalist, the samples he collected were discovered by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to be 50,000 years old. The forest is located 60 feet underwater and ten miles off shore.

    The scientists who studied the samples commented on the well-preserved state they were found in.

    "It is a little darker in color than a piece of modern cypress, but if I didn't tell you that it was over 50,000 years old, you wouldn't know it," said Kristine DeLong, the Louisiana State University researcher responsible for preparing and sending the samples for analysis. "I showed it to some of the other professors and they couldn't believe the wood was that well preserved. It's amazing it has held up. When I cut into them, they smelled just like you were cutting into a cypress tree."

    Raines reported the forest was buried for eons before apparently being uncovered by the giant waves caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

    Original tests suggested the tree samples were between 8,000 and 12,000 years old, consistent with the Gulf Coast sea levels during the most recent ice age. The older dates point to a much more distant ice age.

    "Trees that are 50,000 to 80,000 years old, they should be down 120 feet to 180 feet underwater. But these are sitting at 60 feet. That means that coastline has come up about 60 to 100 feet. That's unusual," said DeLong.

    Since becoming uncovered, it has attracted all kinds of sea creatures and fish. Some of the marine animals that will inhabit the forest will likely burrow their way into the wood, destroying it in the process, LiveScience.com reported.

    Scientists are now running out of time to collect samples for analysis, but Raines' work should have given them enough data and the experience will not be one he soon forgets.

    Raines told Live Science "Swimming around amidst these stumps and logs, you just feel like you're in this fairy world."
    Last edited by American Patriot; July 9th, 2013 at 18:15.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  8. #448
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    Ok... so this stuff "should be down 120 feet" but it's at 60. "Unusual"?

    You bet, if all that melted ice has raised the sea levels in the oceans as much as these lamebrains keep trying to tell us.

    So it IS unusual. lol

    In other words, global warming is utter bullshit and all this so called melting ice in the arctic is freezing up somewhere else.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  9. #449
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    July 31, 2013 Sea Level Rise Surprise

    By S. Fred Singer

    Driving the seemingly endless climate-treaty negotiations, the most widely feared consequence of Global Warming appears to be a catastrophic rise in sea level (SLR). Environmental advocacy groups are filling the airwaves with lurid images of flooding of Bangladesh and Pacific islands, and raising the specter of hundreds of millions of environmental refugees demanding care and compensation.
    Even sober scientists, while not endorsing such obvious scare stories, predict an acceleration of the ongoing global rise, which a system of tidal gauges places at about 18 cm (7 inches) during the 20th century. Economists concerned with trying to estimate a 'social cost' of carbon-dioxide emissions predict huge economic losses from future SLR. Not surprisingly, insurance companies, looking to raise premiums, are cheering them on.

    However, more detailed analyses of actual observations suggest an opposite outcome: A climate warming might even slow down SLR -- rather than accelerate it. To understand this counter-intuitive result, one must first get rid of false leads -- just as in a detective story. The misleading argument here is the oft-quoted statement that the climate warmed by 1degF (0.6 C) in the last 100 years and that SL rose by 18 cm. Both parts of the statement may well be true; but the second part does not necessarily follow from the first.

    Curiously, Barack Obama predicted a deceleration of SLR when he accepted his party's nomination in 2008: "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal." Some tidal-gauge data do show deceleration, but starting in 1960. Hey, wasn't that the year during which Obama was conceived?

    Sea Level Since Last Glacial Maximum (source)
    (Toscano & Macintyre 2003; Fairbanks 1989)


    SLR data problems

    The principal SLR data have come from tidal gauges, which measure not only tides but storms and everything else. And from these measurements one extracts a steady rise in local sea level. There are about two dozen stations in the world with long-enough records dating back to the early 1900s, which have been used by the international tidal gauge network, located in Liverpool, England.

    Global Sea Level 1900 - 1980 (source)
    (Trupin & Wahr 1990)


    Since 1993, we have also had satellite observations; but these have been plagued with various types of uncertainties -- although in principle, satellites can measure absolute sea level independent of any vertical motion of the coastal land surface. The tidal stations are subject to various corrections as well: they measure relative sea level with respect to the station which is fixed to the land. Since the melting of glacial ice cover from Northern continents several millennia ago, the land surface has rebounded in these places -- a process called 'isostatic adjustment.' But at the same time also, many tidal stations have been sinking -- as the coastal land subsided because of the depletion of groundwater, of oil and gas, and of other processes that led to the compaction of sediments.

    It is clear that satellites have an inherent advantage over tidal stations but their figures don't match up. From data gathered by the GRACE satellite system, we can also factor in detailed measurements of local gravity changes but the record is too short to draw firm conclusions. With estimates of past SLR all over the place, how does one proceed?

    Leading researcher Bruce Douglas terms SLR a "puzzle" (Physics Today March 2003), while famed Scripps Institution oceanographer Walter Munk calls it an "enigma" (ProcNatlAcadSci 2004). Maybe we should use Churchill's description of Soviet Russia: "A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma"

    The difficulty with projections of sea level rise is nicely illustrated by the IPCC. The estimates of its first assessment report (1990) showed a range of 10-367 cm for sea level in 2100. The second report, published in 1996, narrowed the range to 3-124 cm. Its third report, published in 2001, showed 11-77 cm. The fourth assessment report, published in 2007, showed 14-43 cm in its draft form but changed it to 18-59 cm in the final printed version. As can be seen, the maximum SLR decreased successively as estimates improved. All these IPCC projections are very much smaller than the extreme values of about 600 cm by activist-scientist James Hansen (and by climate multi-millionaire Al Gore) -- which assume excessive and rapid melting of the Greenland icecap.

    Seal Level Rise to 2100 (source)
    (Singer)

    This narrowing of estimates by the IPCC has caused great concern among alarmists who feared that the IPCC was being "too conservative." Probably as a result of this peer-pressure, estimates have now increased -- as will be seen in the fifth assessment report, due in September 2013. As a reviewer of IPCC reports, I have been able to look at the "second order draft," which was recently leaked to the press. It gives values for 2100 of 45-110 cm (16-40 inches) - about double what IPCC estimated just six years ago in their fourth report. (There is no guarantee that these values will survive in the final printed version.) Still, they are very much smaller than some of the extreme estimates that have been written up in newspapers and magazines -- and always blamed on Global Warming (GW) from carbon dioxide, released in the burning of fossil fuels.

    There are many problems with the basic SLR data, with no easy resolution. For example, the forthcoming (2013) IPCC report shows zero values before 1880 (presumably based on corals), while other coral data and coastal sediments show positive values. Tidal gauge data show no acceleration during the strong warming of 1920-40, and continue to rise during the slight cooling of 1940-75 and during the "pause" in warming of the past 17 years. However, IPCC-2013 shows increasing values (acceleration) for SLR during the same no-warming period -- and may already have been falsified.

    No theory for SLR

    There is no overall theory of SLR, encompassing thermal expansion of the oceans, melting of mountain glaciers, and changes, both positive and negative, of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. (One may ignore to first approximation the "mining" of fossil groundwater and accumulation of water in reservoirs. Of course, changes in floating sea ice do not affect SLR). A German oceanographer-activist, based in Potsdam, has proposed a "semi-empirical" theory under which SLR is related to sea surface temperature -- and thus to atmospheric CO2 levels (if one accepts the existence of appreciable climate sensitivity). But his theory has no theoretical foundation whatsoever and also disagrees strongly with all observations.

    The first clue that there might be something amiss with the logic is hidden in the IPCC report itself. According to their 1996 compilation of data, the contributions to SLR of the past century come mainly from three sources: (i) Thermal expansion of the warming ocean contributed about 4 cm; (ii) the melting of continental glaciers about 3.5 cm. (iii) The Polar Regions, on the other hand, produced a net lowering of SL, mostly from ice accumulation on the Antarctic continent. (The mechanism is intuitively easy to understand but difficult to calculate: A warming ocean evaporates more water, and some of it rains out in the Polar Regions, thus transferring water from the ocean to the polar ice caps.) The surprising result: When one simply adds up all these three contributions (neglecting their large uncertainties), they account for only about 20 percent of the observed rise of 18 cm. The climate warming since 1900 cannot be the cause of the SLR; something is missing here.

    But if, as surmised from the absence of observed acceleration during 1920-40, ice accumulation roughly balances ocean thermal expansion and contributions from melting mountain glaciers, why then is SL rising at all? Another riddle requiring a solution.

    Why not zero SLR?

    The relevant clue comes from corals and from geological observations: It seems that SL has been rising for the past centuries at about the same rate as seen by tidal gauges in the last 100 years -- about 18 cm per century. In other words, SL was rising even during the colder Little Ice age, from about 1400 to 1850 AD. This provides further support for the hypothesis that the observed global SLR since 1900 is reasonably independent of the observed temperature rise.

    The explanation for this riddle had been suspected for some time, based on historic data of SLR derived independently from measurements of coral growth and from isotope determinations of ice volume. But the picture was filled in only more recently through estimates of the rate of melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), by tracing its shrinkage during past millennia (through the receding position of its "grounding line," i.e., the line of contact of the ice sheet with the underlying continental land mass.) Note that the WAIS is not floating sea ice; like a mountain glacier, its melting contributes water to the global oceans.

    We can therefore describe the broad scenario as follows: The strong temperature increase that followed the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) of about 18,000 years ago has melted enough ice to raise SL by 120 meters (400 feet). The rate of rise was quite rapid at first and controlled by the melting of the huge ice sheets covering North America and the Eurasian land mass. These disappeared about 8000-5000 years ago; but the WAIS continued to melt, albeit at a much lower rate -- and it is still melting at about the same rate today. Other, smaller WAIS-like ice sheets may have existed in the Antarctic, but have already melted away.

    The principal conclusion is that this melting will continue for another 7000 years or so, until the WAIS disappears -- unless another ice age takes over before then. Moreover, there is nothing that we can do to stop this future sea level rise! It is as inevitable as the ocean tides -- as long as the Holocene (the present warm interglacial period) survives. Fortunately, coral reefs will continue to grow, as they have in the past, to keep up with SL rise. The rest of us will just have to adapt -- as our ancestors did some 10,000 years ago. At least, we are better equipped to deal with environmental changes.

    A final note

    What about the effects of putative human-induced global warming on SLR? Will it really increase the rate above its natural value, as predicted by the IPCC? We do have a handle on this question by observing what happened when the climate warmed sharply between 1920 and 1940, before cooling between 1940 and 1975. The answer, first noted in 1997, is quite surprising and could not have been derived from theory or from mathematical models. The data seem to show that SLR slowed down slightly when the climate warmed, and then accelerated when the climate cooled. Evidently, ocean-water thermal expansion and mountain-glacier melting were less important than ice accumulation on the Antarctic continent (which lowers SL). Unfortunately, the SL data are not precise enough to withstand scientific challenge -- and reliable data on ice accumulation over the whole Antarctic continent have not been available.

    We can now try to answer our original question: Can a Global Warming really lower sea level rise? It all depends on the time-scale: Yes -- if GW lasts only for some decades or less. No -- if warmer temperatures persist for millennia, the WAIS melting rate would increase -- and so would SLR.
    By analogy, a future warming produced, putatively, by an increase in greenhouse gases would give the same result: i.e., reduce the rate of rise of sea level. This is not a recommendation to burn more coal in order to save Venice from drowning. It is a modest appeal to politicians to take note of new scientific developments and recognize that the drastic limits on energy use called for by climate-treaty negotiators will not stop the rising seas.

    NB: This essay ignores many less important features of global SLR, such as the "mining" of groundwater and construction of dams. It also ignores important regional and local effects that depend on isostatic adjustments, ocean currents and wind patterns, land subsidence, etc. Efforts are underway to harmonize conflicting data from tidal gauges and from direct measurements of the ocean surface by satellites

    S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is a Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute. He co-authored the NY Times best-seller "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years."


    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...#ixzz2adxxhgNh
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

  10. #450
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,425
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth


    Sun's Magnetic Field to Reverse: Historically Low Activity

    August 7, 2013

    If you look up at the sun it seems calm and unchanging. However, millions of miles away the sun is venting it's rage. Over the last 11 years the sun has entered cycle number 24 and is expected to reach the maximum point for sunspot activity over the next couple of months. It is at this point the sun will flip its magnetic fields and the north and south pole on the sun will flip positions.

    The flip-flopping of the Sun’s magnetic field takes place at the peak of each solar activity cycle when the Sun’s internal magnetic dynamo reorients itself.

    While this is not an end of the world event, the reversal will have effects, said solar physicist Todd Hoeksema, the director of Stanford University’s Wilcox Solar Observatory, who monitors the Sun’s polar magnetic fields. “This change will have ripple effects throughout the Solar System,” he said.


    During field reversals, the current sheet becomes very wavy, and as Earth orbits the Sun, we dip in and out of the current sheet. This means we can see an uptick in space weather, with any solar storms affecting Earth more. So, there may be more auroras in our near future.

    Is it happening right now?

    "The sun's north pole has already changed sign, while the south pole is racing to catch up," says Phil Scherrer, solar physicist at Stanford's Wilcox Solar Observatory, which has been monitoring the sun's polar magnetic fields since 1976.

    A new concern!

    It's not the flip in poles that has scientists concerned, it's the lack of activity.

    Solar Cycle 24 will go down in the books as one of the lowest amounts of activity in almost 100 years if not longer.

    Possible explanations for the sun’s latest odd behavior were discussed last month at a meeting of the Astronomical Society’s Solar Physics Division. Scientists agree that Cycle 24 is already among the weakest reported and it has not finished it's full cycle.

    Three independent studies of the sun's insides, surface, and upper atmosphere all predict that the next solar cycle will be significantly delayed—if it happens at all. Normally, the next cycle would be expected to start roughly around 2020.

    Dr Matthew Penn from the national solar observatory says the sunspot cycle may disappear altogether in the next 10 years.

    “If this trend continues, there will be almost no spots in Cycle 25, and we might be going into another Maunder Minimum,” he said.

    If this were the case little solar activity would occur at all. The Maunder Minimum occurred during the same time period when sunspots became extremely rare. This forced a mini ice age over Europe, Russia, and North America causing the Thames river in London to freeze over.

    Dr Penn says there is some research tying lack of sunspots to local weather events. However, there is not a definite tie between a "mini ice age" and lack of solar activity. ()

    Scientists warn the sun is a very unstable star in our galaxy and little is understood as to what the next solar cycle may bring to our solar system.

  11. #451
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    Dr Penn says there is some research tying lack of sunspots to local weather events. However, there is not a definite tie between a "mini ice age" and lack of solar activity. ()
    Ok, well, they can't get the exact years the mini-ice ages started? They can't extrapolate backward to the other solar cycles?

    Wait a minute, from memory.

    We had a "mini-ice age" around the time of the Revolutionary War. One of those occurred starting in 1770.

    Remember that.

    Solar Cycles are 11 years. We're on cycle 24. 24 * 11 = 264 years.

    Actually we can go back to about to around 1600 (I forget the exact time) - but scientists kept count (of sunspots, which is directed related to the "solar maxium") since they could see the sun through telescopes.

    Ok... let's count backward for a second.

    From 1600 to 1720 or so there was a "glitch" in the sun called Maunder Minimum. That's 120 years of almost NO major solar activity. Thus begins the "cooling" of the Earth. Why? Because solar activity DIRECTLY AFFECTS the Earths Ionosphere and stratosphere. That causes 'weather'. No weather causes the entire planet to start to cool. Why? Because air currents aren't as strong, there is less summer storm activity, and more cold air masses moving from the poles. This causes winter activity and blizzards. This causes snow. Snow causes reflected sun light thus lowering the ambient air temps even more, which lowers the surrounding land temps.

    From 1720 through 1770 there were sudden jumps in the solar activity. It was too late for the Earth to start warming back up and thus by 1770 the temps had dropped significantly and winter lasted a VERY long time on the North American continent. As the solar cycle took off again, the Earth began to warm back up.

    This is simple, but it is pretty accurate. This is what having some knowledge of stellar/astro physics, meteorology and earth sciences gives you - and insight how these things are connected.

    Dr. Matthew Penn is an associate astronomer with the National Solar Observatory. As such, that means he has a strong background in stellar sciences. Almost nothing in Earth and weather sciences. Of course he doesn't have his curriculum vitae listed that I can locate, so I'm guessing that part, but I seriously doubt he has a degree in meteorology.

  12. #452
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,425
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth


    North Pole Sees Unprecedented July Cold – Arctic Sees Shortest Summer On Record

    August 3, 2013

    Read the full article

    “Normally the high Arctic has about 90 days above freezing. This year there was less than half that,” says Steven Goddard website.



    Graph courtesy of COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
    Thanks to F. Guimaraes for this link

    “The Arctic ice extent is showing a remarkable recovery from the great oscillations of 2012,” says Guimaraes. “Compare with the previous years listed there, you’ll see that 2004 is the year that is closest to 2013 in terms of average temps during the summer.”

  13. #453
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,425
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth


    Major Danish Daily Newspaper Warns: ‘Globe May Be On Path To Little Ice Age…Much Colder Winters…Dramatic Consequences’

    August 9, 2013

    Read the full article



    Another major European media outlet is asking: Where’s the global warming?

    Image right: The August 7 edition of Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, featured a major 2-page article on the globe’s 15-years of missing warming and the potential solar causes and implications.

    Moreover, they are featuring prominent skeptic scientists who are warning of a potential little ice age and dismissing CO2 as a major climate driver. And all of this just before the release of the IPCC’s 5AR, no less!

    Hat-tip: NTZ reader Arne Garbøl

    The August 7 print edition of the Danish Jyllands-Posten, the famous daily that published the “Muhammad caricatures“, features a full 2-page article bearing the headline: ”The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age” followed by the sub-headline: “Defying all predictions, the globe may be on the road towards a new little ice age with much colder winters.”

    So now even the once very green Danish media is now spreading the seeds of doubt. So quickly can “settled science” become controversial and hotly disputed. The climate debate is far from over. And when it does end, it looks increasingly as if it’ll end in favor of the skeptics.

    The JP writes that “many will be startled” by the news that a little ice age is a real possibility. Indeed, western citizens have been conditioned to think that nothing except warming is possible. Few have prepared for any other possibility.

    In its latest 2-page report, the JP now appears to tell its readers that our views on climate science have to be much more open minded and unshackled from the chains of dogmatism.

    JP starts by reminding readers that it was just over 100 years ago that the world had clawed itself out of the little ice age, which extended from 1400 – 1900, a time when the Thames river often froze over. All paths in determining the cause of the little ice age all seem to converge to a single factor: solar activity.

    The Jyllands-Posten quotes David Hathaway:

    ‘We now have the lowest solar activity in 100 years,’ David Hathaway from American space research institute NASA newly concluded in connection to the release of new figures for the sun’s activity. He said the activity for the ongoing cycle is half of the previous cycle, and he predicted an even lower activity for the next cycle, which will hit us in few years.”

    Suddenly even the greenest of media outlets among us are contemplating what the consequences of a quiet sun may be. The JP then quotes Irish solar specialist Ian Elliott, who says these consequences could be dramatic:

    It indicates that we may be on the path to a new little ice age. It seems likely we are on the path to a period with very low solar activity, which could mean that we may have some very cold winters.”

    Elliott then cites the ice-cold winters of 2009 and 2010 as early signs.

    JP then cites at length Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark, who needs no introduction:

    Since the 1940s and up to 10 years ago we have had the highest solar activity in 1000 years. The last time we had solar activity that high was when we had the Medieval Warm Period from year 1000 to around 1300. … Historically there has been a close connection between solar activity and temperature for the last 1000 years. Therefore the sun’s activity will also have influence the coming many years. … The unusual thing right now is that sun’s activity is decreasing while there’s a great increase in atmospheric CO2. For that reason the question is how much the earth will cool in a time of decreasing solar activity. … The development is beautifully consistent with a cooling effect of the solar activity in the same period. This could mean that the temperature will not rise for the next 30 years or maybe begin to decrease.”

    JP also quotes Svensmark on the subject of the IPCC: “…many of the climate models used by IPCC and others overestimate the influence of CO2 and underestimate the influence of the sun. … The IPCC is very one-sided, so I don’t think there will be anything reasonable in the next report.

    Where did all the heat go?




    In the second part (see right) of the JP’s feature story on climate science, the daily asks whatever happened to all the missing warming?

    Despite predictions that the temperature on the globe should rise with a huge speed, nothing has really happened the last 10-15 years. However climate scientists are insisting we are in the middle of the heaviest global warming maybe ever, and that the temperature will rise with at least 2-4 degrees towards the year 2100.”

    JP asks scientist Sebastian Mernild of the Glaciology and Climate Change Laboratory Center for Scientific Studies in Chile, who insists that ocean currents have taken the heat “down to the deep sea”.

    Once unthinkable just a few years ago, the European media and JP are now starting to admit the oceans are a poorly understood wild card in the climate equation after all. JP openly states, “The oceans are generally regarded as the big wildcard in the climate discussion.” Jylland Posten ends its 2-page feature story with questions and comments by Svensmark:

    How should ocean water under 700 meters be warmed up without a warming in the upper part? … In the period 1990-2000 you could see a rise in the ocean temperatures, which fit with the greenhouse effect. But it hasn’t been seen for the last 10 years. Temperatures don’t rise without the heat content in the sea increasing. Several thousand buoys put into the sea to measure temperature haven’t registered any rise in sea temperatures
    .”

  14. #454
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    Do please try to keep up here, ok?

    In 1911.... England has a massive heat wave. Killed a bunch of babies.

    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...&searchLimits=

    in 2013 a "Sociologist" explains that air conditioning will be the "death of us all"...

    http://ideas.time.com/2013/07/17/vie...#ixzz2ZKRuhTUG

    His main point being that air conditioning uses SOOO much energy it's warming the world. Apparently. And of course, we use:
    Today Americans use twice as much energy for air-conditioning as we did 20 years ago, and more than the rest of the world’s nations combined. As a climate-change adaptation strategy, this is as dumb as it gets.
    Ok... so I did a little checking. the "air conditioner" was invented in 1902. They didn't come into use by people until 1940-1950.

    Thus, air conditioners weren't even around prior to the heat wave of 1911, or certainly at least not long enough to have caused a human made heat wave.

    Furthermore....

    I found this chart:



    You will note that petrolum products were NOT normally used in 1911. Coal was a major player in energy then and not even at the peak of use. Nuclear wasn't thought of. Natural gas wasn't used, or barely touched. Wood use was on the decline.

    So, from this I get a few things:

    1) Sociologists haven't a fucking clue.
    2) Sociologists make shit up.
    3) Professors "Profess" way too much when they are clueless and making shit up.
    4) There is no "man-made" global warming.
    5) Time Magazine is a lying media outlet.

  15. #455
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,425
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth


    Atlanta Breaks A Century-Old Temperature Record Thursday

    August 16, 2013

    Atlanta's high temperature on Thursday was only 73 degrees which is the coolest high temperature on record for August 15.

    The previous record was a high of only 77 degrees from 1908.

    Thursday's high followed even cooler temperatures on Friday when Atlanta only hit 67 degrees -- the coolest August high temperature since 1986.

    The average high temperature for this time of year is 88 degrees, putting Thursday's high 15 degrees below average.

    Atlanta has seen a cooler-than-average summer due to a lot of rain. We're about 15 inches above average on rainfall this year.

  16. #456
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    Damn that globull warming causing it to cool!

  17. #457
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,425
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth


    Record Return Of Arctic Ice Cap As It Grows By 60% In A Year

    September 7, 2013



    A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.

    The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

    Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.

    The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.

    Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.

    The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has ‘paused’ since the beginning of 1997 – an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict.

    In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with ‘90 per cent certainty’.

    The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter climate change.

    Those predictions now appear gravely flawed.

    The continuing furore caused by The Mail on Sunday’s revelations – which will now be amplified by the return of the Arctic ice sheet – has forced the UN’s climate change body to hold a crisis meeting.

    The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was due in October to start publishing its Fifth Assessment Report – a huge three-volume study issued every six or seven years. It will now hold a pre-summit in Stockholm later this month.

    Leaked documents show that governments which support and finance the IPCC are demanding more than 1,500 changes to the report’s ‘summary for policymakers’. They say its current draft does not properly explain the pause.

    At the heart of the row lie two questions: the extent to which temperatures will rise with carbon dioxide levels, as well as how much of the warming over the past 150 years – so far, just 0.8C – is down to human greenhouse gas emissions and how much is due to natural variability.

    In its draft report, the IPCC says it is ‘95 per cent confident’ that global warming has been caused by humans – up from 90 per cent in 2007.

    This claim is already hotly disputed. US climate expert Professor Judith Curry said last night: ‘In fact, the uncertainty is getting bigger. It’s now clear the models are way too sensitive to carbon dioxide. I cannot see any basis for the IPCC increasing its confidence level.’

    She pointed to long-term cycles in ocean temperature, which have a huge influence on climate and suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend. This led some scientists at the time to forecast an imminent ice age.

    Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, was one of the first to investigate the ocean cycles. He said: ‘We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.

    ‘The IPCC claims its models show a pause of 15 years can be expected. But that means that after only a very few years more, they will have to admit they are wrong.’

    Others are more cautious. Dr Ed Hawkins, of Reading University, drew the graph published by The Mail on Sunday in March showing how far world temperatures have diverged from computer predictions. He admitted the cycles may have caused some of the recorded warming, but insisted that natural variability alone could not explain all of the temperature rise over the past 150 years.

    Nonetheless, the belief that summer Arctic ice is about to disappear remains an IPCC tenet, frequently flung in the face of critics who point to the pause.

    Yet there is mounting evidence that Arctic ice levels are cyclical. Data uncovered by climate historians show that there was a massive melt in the 1920s and 1930s, followed by intense re-freezes that ended only in 1979 – the year the IPCC says that shrinking began.

    Professor Curry said the ice’s behaviour over the next five years would be crucial, both for understanding the climate and for future policy. ‘Arctic sea ice is the indicator to watch,’ she said.

  18. #458
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    So.... it's NOT MELTING?

    lol

    Shit, I was hoping for Water world.

  19. #459
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,425
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    Hope you boys and girls have your thermal underwear ready!


    Solar Activity Drops To 100-Year Low, Puzzling Scientists

    September 18, 2013

    Predictions that 2013 would see an upsurge in solar activity and geomagnetic storms disrupting power grids and communications systems have proved to be a false alarm. Instead, the current peak in the solar cycle is the weakest for a century.

    Subdued solar activity has prompted controversial comparisons with the Maunder Minimum, which occurred between 1645 and 1715, when a prolonged absence of sunspots and other indicators of solar activity coincided with the coldest period in the last millennium.

    The comparisons have sparked a furious exchange of views between observers who believe the planet could be on the brink of another period of cooling, and scientists who insist there is no evidence that temperatures are about to fall.

    New Scientist magazine blasted those who predicted a mini ice age, opening a recent article on the surprising lack of sunspots this year with the bold declaration: "Those hoping that the sun could save us from climate change look set for disappointment".

    "The recent lapse in solar activity is not the beginning of a decades-long absence of sunspots, a dip that might have cooled the climate. Instead it represents a shorter, less pronounced downturn that happens every century or so," ("Sun's quiet spell not the start of a mini ice age" July 12).

    The unusually low number of sunspots in recent years "is not an indication that we are going into a Maunder Minimum" according to Giuliana DeToma, a solar scientist at the High Altitude Observatory in Colorado.

    But DeToma admitted "we will do not know how or why the Maunder Minimum started, so we cannot predict the next one."

    Many solar experts think the downturn is linked a different phenomenon, the Gleissberg cycle, which predicts a period of weaker solar activity every century or so. If that turns out to be true, the sun could remain unusually quiet through the middle of the 2020s.

    But since the scientists still do not understand why the Gleissberg cycle takes place, the evidence is inconclusive. The bottom line is that the sun has gone unusually quiet and no one really knows why or how it will last.

    Counting sunspots


    Solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs), when billions of tonnes of solar plasma erupt from the surface of the sun and are flung out into space at speeds up to 3,000 kilometres per second, pose the biggest risk to power grids and communications systems.

    Sunspots are less dramatic, but because they are easy to count and closely correlated with flares, mass ejections and other indications of solar activity, astronomers and scientists have used them for centuries to monitor variations in the sun's activity.

    Careful observation has revealed the number of sunspots rises and falls in a regular cycle that repeats every 11 years.

    Variations in the amount of heat and light reaching the planet's surface as a result of the cycle are tiny. Total solar output reaching the surface varies by just 1.3 Watts per square metre (0.1 percent) between the maximum and minimum phases of the cycle.

    Even this variation has profound impacts on climate and weather. Rainfall, cloud formation and river run-off are all strongly correlated with the sun's 11-year cycle.

    The impact is far smaller than the warming associated with man-made climate change. Solar activity cannot explain long-term trends in global temperatures such as those associated with global warming. But it may have a noticeable impact over shorter timescales.

    Maunder Minimum


    Not all solar cycles are the same. Cycles in the 1940s and 1950s were especially strong. Those at the end or the 19th century and the start of the 20th were much weaker.

    More profoundly, in the 1890s, Walter Maunder of the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, identified a "prolonged sunspot minimum" between 1645 and 1715 in which hardly any sunspots were observed by contemporaries.

    At times, whole years passed without any sunspots being recorded. Sunspots became so rare that in 1684 Britain's Astronomer Royal John Flamsteed was moved to write: "these appearances, however frequent in the days of ... Galileo have been so rare of late that this is the only one I have seen ... since December 1676".

    John Eddy of the High Altitude Observatory confirmed Maunder's findings in an article published in the peer-reviewed journal Science in 1976 ("The Maunder Minimum: The reign of Louis XIV appears to have been a time of real anomaly in the behaviour of the sun").

    Eddy found convincing evidence for an actual absence of sunspots, not just an absence of observations. Maunder's prolonged sunspot minimum correlates well with other evidence of unusually low solar activity at the time, including few sightings of the Northern Lights, no mention of the sun's normally spectacular corona during eclipses, and the carbon-14 record in tree rings.

    The Maunder Minimum coincided with one of the coldest parts of the Little Ice Age, which spanned roughly the 15th to 19th centuries. Some observers have linked the lack of solar activity to the cooling of the climate, though the explanation remains controversial.

    It is this interaction between sunspots, climate and global warming that makes analysis of the solar cycle so controversial. It is hard to write about sunspots without stirring furious reactions, which explains why New Scientist took a strong line on the issue.

    Running late and low


    Cycles are conventionally numbered from the time that the first comprehensive records were kept around 1755. Before this, sunspot counts have to be estimated based on incomplete data. The current cycle, Solar Cycle 24, dates from around December 2008/January 2009.

    But Solar Cycle 24 is running late, and activity has been unusually weak throughout, taking solar scientists by surprise.

    The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) convenes a panel to assess when peaks and troughs in the cycle have occurred and forecast when the next peak or trough will occur.

    In March 2007 and again in June 2008, the panel forecast Solar Cycle 24 would peak between October 2011 and August 2012, with a monthly average of 90-140 sunspots.

    But as the sun's activity fell below the prediction, the forecast peak was pushed back to May 2013. Now some scientists believe it is only the first part of a double peak, with a second peak scheduled for 2014 or even 2015.

    During the minimum part of the cycle, "there are stretches of days and weeks when no sunspots can be seen, but a monthly mean of zero is uncommon," Eddy wrote in 1976. "In contrast, in the years around a sunspot maximum there is a seldom a day when a number of spots cannot be seen, and often hundreds are present."

    Not this time. Between July 2008 and August 2009, an average of less than 1 sunspot was observed in eight out of 13 months.

    Solar activity has since increased, but the cycle appeared to peak in May 2013, with only an average of only 77 sunspots visible, down sharply from previous peaks of 175 sunspots in July 2000 and 217 in June 1989.

    It is far below the level the panel predicted. "Not only is this the smallest cycle we've seen in the space age, it's the smallest cycle in 100 years," according to a NASA research scientist cited in the popular blog Universe Today("Solar Cycle 24: On track to be the weakest in 100 years).

    Even fewer sunspots


    Solar activity has terrifying potential to paralyse modern electricity and communications systems.

    Lower solar activity might also be one factor explaining some of the recent slowdown in global warming.

    "The longevity of the recent protracted solar minimum, at least two years longer than the prior minima of the satellite era makes that solar minimum a potentially potent force for cooling," according to one group of climate scientists ("Earth's energy imbalance and implications" Dec 2011).

    Even with the downturn in solar activity, the planet continued to absorb more energy than it radiated out into space.

    Yet as the frequent revisions to the panel's forecasts demonstrate, scientists have little ability to predict solar activity accurately, even over short timescales.

    The 11-year sunspot cycle, named after the amateur astronomer who discovered it in 1843, Heinrich Schwabe, is not the only cycle scientists have observed in the sun's behaviour.

    In 1933, Wolfgang Gleissberg identified a super-cycle occurring every 87 years. Others have claimed to find even longer cycles. Some scientists believe the Gleissberg cycle accounts for the succession of three very weak 11-year cycles between the 1880s and the 1910s.

    If that's true, and the Gleissberg cycle is being repeated, then the next solar cycle, Cycle 25, which will last into the 2020s, could see an even smaller number of sunspots and an even lower level of solar activity.

    The problem is that no one knows what causes the Gleissberg cycle (and being much less frequent the evidence for it in the time series is much less than for the Schwabe cycle). Nor do they know how to distinguish between a normal Gleissberg cycle and the onset of a new Maunder Minimum.

    So if a new Maunder Minimum is on the way, which the forecasters insist it is not, it is likely to catch us by surprise.

    Given how little is known variations in solar activity, it would be foolish to rely on a Maunder Minimum to offset the rise in global temperatures due to greenhouse emissions.

  20. #460
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    Wife just picked up some nice Underarmor stuff for me.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •