TL vs. Climate Change (Denial) - Page 19

"Parsing out how much of that was solar, how much of that was volcanic and how much of that was just noise ... that's tricky," Schmidt said.

On December 14 2011 11:59 slytown wrote:
... Here's the kicker against the CO2 argument; CO2 is .054% of the atmospheric gasses. Of the Greenhouse Gasses, wator vapor composes 95% of it. Greenhouse Gas global warming would be indicated by greater warming in the troposphere but actually satellite and weather balloon data from that height indicates the surface warming was more intense during this recent warming period and temperature actually decreased with altitude ...

On December 14 2011 14:08 sluggaslamoo wrote:


This is silly, how is that the kicker against the CO2 argument? Composition has no relation, you can take a tiny amount of fatal poison when compared to the rest of your body but you still risk dying.

And of course temperature decreases with altitude. Apart from that obvious fact, lets say he actually meant, temparature decreased in the same time-frame surface temperature increased. Greenhouse gases both reflect and trap heat, that probably explains it. The problem is it keeps in more heat than it reflects, its just like a glass house, some of the rays will bounce off the glass, however what passes through is light energy, it gets converted to heat energy when it hits the ground.

Why are we concerned about heat in the upper atmosphere??? Humans do not live up there, humans live on the ground. so does everything else, if water and food was available in the sky, that would be awesome, but its not, it is grown, ON THE GROUND.

On December 14 2011 13:53 XRaDiiX wrote:
Here is a related Article on the exact same study with a Title that should satiate Probulous

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-06/hibernating-sun-during-next-solar-cycle-could-chill-earth-new-forecast-predicts

More Information Relevant.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Recent research (3) indicates that the combined effects of sunspot-induced changes in solar irradiance and increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases offer the best explanation yet for the observed rise in average global temperature over the last century. Using a global climate model based on energy conservation, Lane et al (3) constructed a profile of atmospheric climate "forcing" due to combined changes in solar irradiance and emissions of greenhouse gases between 1880 and 1993. They found that the temperature variations predicted by their model accounted for up to 92% of the temperature changes actually observed over the period -- an excellent match for that period. Their results also suggest that the sensitivity of climate to the effects of solar irradiance is about 27% higher than its sensitivity to forcing by greenhouse gases.

Global climate models coupling the atmosphere and the oceans do replicate well certain climate changes, in particular changes in temperature observed over the last century and the last few decades, if the following observed variants are incorporated (1):

1. greenhouse gas concentrations,
   
2. stratospheric ozone,
   
3. aerosols in the troposphere,
   
4. aerosols in the stratosphere, and
   
5. solar activity (sunspots).

The first three of these are largely due to activities of mankind, the last two are natural. The application of statistical tests to temperature measurements during this century lead to the conclusion that the warming is man-made with a confidence of 99% (2). The global mean temperature trend between 1975-1997, and even regional variations in this trend, can be explained very well by observed changes in greenhouse-gas concentrations (3), in other words greenhouse gas emissions are by far the leading cause of climate change during the last quarter of the 20th century. The last decade of the 20th century (especially the years 1990, 1993 and 1997) is almost certainly the warmest since 1400 (3).

The match between observed and modeled temperature change during the 20th century cannot be explained by natural climate variability, as shown by the differences between three long control runs (1). This is an important point, because the global-mean temperature variations between 1400-1900 correlate well with the record of volcano activity (which is uncertain) and, especially, changes of solar brightness (which are well known) (3).

In fact, it is possible that the temperature anomalies now known as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are entirely attributed to the inherent, internal variability of the global climate, i.e. not to any external forcing mechanism. This was shown by a numerical simulation of the climate for 500 years under a constant solar brightness, starting with various realistic initial conditions (4). One of the ten runs reveals spatial differences and temporal changes of temperature remarkably like those actually observed. Sceptics of the greenhouse warming theory have grasped this argument to say that enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations may not be the cause of the global warming observed during the last few decades, but merely enhancing factors. Clearly this opinion is flawed, as shown by GCM simulations for 1963-1995 (1).

On December 14 2011 14:11 Probulous wrote:


Oh man this is a hoot

I am going to focus on the sun-spot thing because that is what we have been talking about.
Firstly this is some random website where are the references are links to other random websites. No journal articles, especially no articles in climate science publications. But OK, I get it they are not allowed to publish in those because of the conspiracy.

The argument put forward regarding sunspots is thus


Now if you actually read the link that they use to support their argument it states



Not only do these guys not read what they use as sources but the sources actually refute what is being said. Face palm to the max.

On December 14 2011 14:10 XRaDiiX wrote:



Relevant Information
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html


Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

On December 14 2011 14:15 sluggaslamoo wrote:


The water vapour concept is so old and lame. I remember someone using it years ago, and I ended up tracing the author to some commercial industry/politician with a vested interest, and who had no actual expertise in science.

It was basically abusing a logical fallacy, because it was using falsified data on top of a falsified equation to prove a falsifed answer, which made it seem correct, because it was doing all these scientific calculations and graphs to come up with an answer, only problem was the variables used initially were completely incorrect. And then you have confirmation bias, because the guy doesn't even screen check the original authors, he only cites it because it agrees with him.

It was a long time ago, Ill have to have a look after work.

On December 14 2011 14:14 XRaDiiX wrote:


That site isn't really related to what we were discussing but it was more relevant to the general OP's Point.

I found another link that is relevant to our discussion
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/14/6857473-solar-forecast-hints-at-a-big-chill

More Information Relevant.

On December 14 2011 14:19 Probulous wrote:


Well you linked it. I assume you meant it to be relevant. In fact you state Are you not actually reading what you link?

Still waiting for that second link to open. I get the banner and that is it. Must be the Aussie econspiracy. Looks like a blog to me.

On December 14 2011 14:20 XRaDiiX wrote:


Those are their speculations like i said it was relevant to the thread but those were that persons speculations. Nothing is entirely factual in the climate debate.

Check the link that i posted relevant to our earlier discussion.
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/14/6857473-solar-forecast-hints-at-a-big-chill

On December 14 2011 14:23 Probulous wrote:


I'm trying to it is still opening

Well you may believe that nothing is entirely factual but that doesn't mean you can go around making up facts. What you linked did not show a link between solar activity and warming/cooling. In fact it explicitly stated otherwise. I am still waiting on something that shows that link.

Literally waiting

TitleTitle:Solar forecast hints at a big chill



By Alan Boyle
Last updated 3:15 p.m. ET
The latest long-range space forecast predicts a prolonged drop in solar activity after the next peak — and scientists say that might cool down temperatures here on Earth, or at least slow down the warming trend a bit.
Scientists have studied sunspots and the sun's 11-year activity cycle for 400 years, and they're getting increasingly savvy about spotting the harbingers of "space weather" years in advance, just as meteorologists can figure out what's coming after the next storm.
Storms from the sun are expected to build to a peak in 2013 or so, but after that, the long-range indicators are pointing to an extended period of low activity — or even hibernation.
"This is important because the solar cycle causes space weather ... and may contribute to climate change," Frank Hill, associate director of the National Solar Observatory's Solar Synoptic Network, told journalists today.
In the past, such periods have coincided with lower-than-expected temperatures on Earth. The most famous example is the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots from 1645 to 1715. Average temperatures in Europe sank so low during that period that it came to be known as "the Little Ice Age."
The linkage between solar activity and climate change is still a matter of scientific debate. And even if there is a link, it's not clear how solar-caused global cooling might interact with industrial global warming due to greenhouse-gas emissions. Climate scientists say the swings in solar activity that they've studied so far have had little or no impact on temperatures or other climate indicators — and they don't expect to see a big impact even if the sun goes quiet for a decade or longer.
But if today's forecast is correct, solar physicists and climatologists will have a golden opportunity to find out for sure.
Hill said scientists had "no way of predicting" how long the hibernation period might last. "It may very well last as long as the Maunder Minimum ... if it occurs," he said.
Hill and other experts on solar activity announced the long-range forecast today at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society's Solar Physics Division, being conducted this week at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, N.M.
How do they know?
The forecast is based on three indicators thought to be tied to long-range solar activity, the comparative rise and fall of sunspots over the activity cycle, as well as the brightness of those sunspots; patterns in the sun's internal "jet stream" of superheated plasma; and the pace of migration in the sun's magnetic field toward the poles, as seen in the sun's corona.
An unusually low number of sunspots have been observed during the current cycle, and the spots are fainter than average. Scientists say they have seen no sign of a characteristic east-west flow of internal plasma, which usually sets the stage for future increases in activity. And the magnetic "rush to the poles" appears to be slowing down.
All these signs suggest that the current solar cycle, Cycle 24, "may be the last one for quite some time," Hill said. The next upswing in solar storms, Cycle 25, may be "very much delayed ... very weak, or may not happen at all."
Beyond the climate effect, solar activity is known to have a significant potential impact on satellite operations, electric power grids and even exposure to radiation at high-altitudes. Solar storms can disrupt satellite signals or air-traffic navigation systems. In 1989, a solar outburst caused a widespread power outage in Quebec. And particularly strong solar flares have forced astronauts to take shelter in shielded areas of the space shuttle or the International Space Station.
Some observers have worried about the possibility of a massive geomagnetic super-storm like the one that swept over Earth in 1859, known as the "Carrington event." For those folks, the news that the sun appears to be settling down, coupled with indications that the 2013 solar maximum is not expected to be unusually strong, should be reassuring.
About that ice age ...
Hill and two other solar physicists involved in formulating the forecast, NSO researcher Matt Penn and Richard Altrock of the U.S. Air Force's coronal research program, said there was not yet enough data to firm up a climate connection to solar activity. But they and other scientists have noted that historic lulls in sunspots, such as the Maunder Minimum and another solar minimum between 1790 and 1830, coincided with cooler temperatures.
Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the founders of the RealClimate blog, said the effects of solar activity on climate over the past 30 years have been "at the margin of what we can detect."
"They are detectable in the high atmosphere, but when you get down to the surface, there is so much other stuff going on that it's been really hard to get a clean signal," he told me.
One of the reasons why so little is known about solar effects on climate is that the sun's highs and lows have been within such a narrow range in recent history.
"If we were to see a return to what's called Maunder Minimum conditions in the next 50 years or so, that would be interesting," Schmidt said. "I think we'd learn a lot about solar physics and solar variability. ... It's going to be scientifically very exciting if all this pans out."
Even then, however, he estimated that the effect of greenhouse-gas emissions would be on the order of 10 times as great. "What you might see over a 20- to 30-year period is a slight slowdown in the pace of warming," Schmidt said. "In terms of how we should think about climate change prediction in the future, reducing emissions and so on, it really wouldn't make much of a difference."
But what about the Little Ice Age in the 1600s, when Swiss Alpine villages were reported destroyed by encroaching glaciers? Schmidt said that period also coincided with an upswing in volcanic emissions, which are known more definitely to contribute to global cooling.
"Parsing out how much of that was solar, how much of that was volcanic and how much of that was just noise ... that's tricky," Schmidt said.
Will this latest forecast be used to argue that we don't need to worry about global warming? Or will the effect of solar hibernation (if it even occurs) turn out to be a blip at best? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below.


The studies presented at this week's SPD meeting in Las Cruces include "Large-Scale Zonal Flows During the Solar Minimum — Where Is Cycle 25?" by Frank Hill, R. Howe, R. Komm, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, T.P. Larson, J. Schou and M.J. Thompson; "A Decade of Diminishing Sunspot Vigor" by W.C. Livingston, M. Penn and L. Svalgard; and "Whither Goes Cycle 24? A View From the Fe XIV Corona" by R.C. Altrock.

On December 14 2011 14:25 XRaDiiX wrote:



I've given 2 different links now.... either your government censors these websites (Eco -Fascist Australian Government :O)

Or .....?

Hill and two other solar physicists involved in formulating the forecast, NSO researcher Matt Penn and Richard Altrock of the U.S. Air Force's coronal research program, said there was not yet enough data to firm up a climate connection to solar activity. But they and other scientists have noted that historic lulls in sunspots, such as the Maunder Minimum and another solar minimum between 1790 and 1830, coincided with cooler temperatures.
Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the founders of the RealClimate blog, said the effects of solar activity on climate over the past 30 years have been "at the margin of what we can detect."
"They are detectable in the high atmosphere, but when you get down to the surface, there is so much other stuff going on that it's been really hard to get a clean signal," he told me.
One of the reasons why so little is known about solar effects on climate is that the sun's highs and lows have been within such a narrow range in recent history.
"If we were to see a return to what's called Maunder Minimum conditions in the next 50 years or so, that would be interesting," Schmidt said. "I think we'd learn a lot about solar physics and solar variability. ... It's going to be scientifically very exciting if all this pans out."
Even then, however, he estimated that the effect of greenhouse-gas emissions would be on the order of 10 times as great. "What you might see over a 20- to 30-year period is a slight slowdown in the pace of warming," Schmidt said. "In terms of how we should think about climate change prediction in the future, reducing emissions and so on, it really wouldn't make much of a difference."
But what about the Little Ice Age in the 1600s, when Swiss Alpine villages were reported destroyed by encroaching glaciers? Schmidt said that period also coincided with an upswing in volcanic emissions, which are known more definitely to contribute to global cooling.
"Parsing out how much of that was solar, how much of that was volcanic and how much of that was just noise ... that's tricky," Schmidt said.

Hill and two other solar physicists involved in formulating the forecast, NSO researcher Matt Penn and Richard Altrock of the U.S. Air Force's coronal research program, said there was not yet enough data to firm up a climate connection to solar activity. But they and other scientists have noted that historic lulls in sunspots, such as the Maunder Minimum and another solar minimum between 1790 and 1830, coincided with cooler temperatures.

Even then, however, he estimated that the effect of greenhouse-gas emissions would be on the order of 10 times as great. "What you might see over a 20- to 30-year period is a slight slowdown in the pace of warming," Schmidt said. "In terms of how we should think about climate change prediction in the future, reducing emissions and so on, it really wouldn't make much of a difference."

But what about the Little Ice Age in the 1600s, when Swiss Alpine villages were reported destroyed by encroaching glaciers? Schmidt said that period also coincided with an upswing in volcanic emissions, which are known more definitely to contribute to global cooling.
"Parsing out how much of that was solar, how much of that was volcanic and how much of that was just noise ... that's tricky," Schmidt said.

On December 14 2011 14:34 XRaDiiX wrote:
Oh i finally found the book/documents etc that the Club of Rome. Elites set in Plan 20-30 years ago. This has been in the works for Decades.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread712540/pg1

"For those who are unfamiliar with , we shall start here with a brief background (BUT don't stop here, you're going to want to see all of this!).

Founded in 1968 at ’s estate in Bellagio, Italy, describes itself as "a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity." It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN beaureacrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe.


A few more recognizable members include Al Gore, , Bill Gates, , Ted Turner, Henry Kissinger, Tony Blair, George Soros, and many more.. "



Call me a Crazy conspiracy theorist but these guys have been planning this for decades.