The Sun is shutting down , is another LIA coming ?

[Greatcloud]

The point is that this growth in glaciers may signal the end of GW, after a decade of stasis.

 

[Chalnoth]

The point is that this growth in glaciers may signal the end of GW, after a decade of stasis.

Except there has been no growth of glaciers on average, and there certainly has been no stasis.

 

[Greatcloud]

This is temperature stasis

 

[Chalnoth]

This is temperature stasis

We've been over again and again and again why that graph is horrifyingly misleading. Of course you'll just keep posting it because to the ignorant mind it appears to support your ridiculous claims.

 

[Greatcloud]

How about this chart it shows stasis also.

 

[Chalnoth]

How about this chart it shows stasis also.

If you want to see a long-term trend, try smoothing the data. A 5-year smoothing makes the trend blatantly obvious (because it gets rid of most of the ENSO effect).

 

[Greatcloud]

New sunspots just appeared, known as sunspot group 1045. This is an active region that has produced moderate (M-class) solar flares. Here’s a photo of the sun

Well this is it, we have several sunspots and that is it. We are still waiting for the big cycle to start and these are just preliminary. The cycle is late and temperatures are dropping.

 

[Chalnoth]

And meanwhile, the 12-month period from April 2009-March 2010 is the warmest 12-month period on record!
Greed, Green and Grains: Warmest 12 months in recorded history, and then some

 

[Michael]

FYI, you may find it more productive to look at the iron ion wavelengths to see the suns activities rather than sunspot images. The sunspots are related to the activity you'll see in 195A, 171A and 284A images, but not every active region in the iron ion wavelengths generates a sunspot. Sunspots form over the largest of the active regions.

The sun has also "gotten it's groove back" over the last few months and has certainly shown an increase in higher energy activity. That is typical as we head in the sun's more active phases which should peak in 2011-2012.

CME's (coronal mass ejections) can and do happen even during quiet phases but they pick up dramatically during the active phases. The Earth picks up that extra energy as we see in graphs that track the temperature of the Earth's oceans vs. the sun's active phases. While temperatures may have cooled for the last few years, the odds are that they should begin to rise again with the increased activity of the sun during it's active cycle.

 

[Chalnoth]

While temperatures may have cooled for the last few years,

They, uh, haven't. This becomes abundantly clear if you look at the 5-year smoothed data. Plus, the last year has been the warmest on record so far.

 

[Michael]

Notice the term "may have" in my sentence? Chill dude, I'm on your side.

FYI, I have "zero" faith in any of the global warming numbers after all those revelations about the way they were produced and the way the data was filtered. The "investigations" seem to exonerate the scientists (not necessarily the UN), but the methodology revelations make it clear that these numbers can vary from individual to individual.

IMO the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is really where the debate should be, not on global warming or cooling which IMO is more influenced by the sun than by man.

 

[The Penitent Man]

This news item does not quite fulfill Revelation 6:12, but the insinuation is there.

 

[Chalnoth]

FYI, I have "zero" faith in any of the global warming numbers after all those revelations about the way they were produced and the way the data was filtered. The "investigations" seem to exonerate the scientists (not necessarily the UN), but the methodology revelations make it clear that these numbers can vary from individual to individual.

This is why independent verification is one of the cornerstones of any good science. There are multiple, independent measures of global temperature, and they all agree to within the expected errors.

IMO the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is really where the debate should be, not on global warming or cooling which IMO is more influenced by the sun than by man.

That's, um, flatly contradicted by the data. The Sun has remained more or less constant since around 1950 (there have been some ups and downs, but no significant overall trend).

 

[Greatcloud]

There you go the temperature is down

 

[Chalnoth]

Wait, isn't your entire argument that the temperature has dropped over the last decade? That graph stops before the last decade!

 

[Michael]

This is why independent verification is one of the cornerstones of any good science. There are multiple, independent measures of global temperature, and they all agree to within the expected errors.

Ya, but...
FOXNews.com - Last in Class: Critics Give U.N. Climate Researchers an 'F'

The news hasn't exactly been easy to sift through frankly. That is why the C02 debate is "better" IMO. The numbers are easier to measure and harder to fudge and there aren't many "possible sources" quite honestly.

That's, um, flatly contradicted by the data. The Sun has remained more or less constant since around 1950 (there have been some ups and downs, but no significant overall trend).

Perhaps so, but the Earth is presently between ice ages so the notion that the sun's output is "constant" over longer periods of time is a bit harder to swallow.

 

[Chalnoth]

Ya, but...
FOXNews.com - Last in Class: Critics Give U.N. Climate Researchers an 'F'

A team of people hand-picked by a contrarian organization, and you trust that? Come on!

I most especially wouldn't trust anything belted out by Fox News, given the lies and distortions they gleefully promote on the air.

Just to bring out one example criticism, they state in that article that 5600 of the IPCC reports' 18500 sources were not peer reviewed. This is because in climate science, a good fraction of the observational data comes from the organizations of various governments around the world, not from scientific organizations. This so-called "grey literature" is largely necessary in climate science, and there are strict guidelines that the IPCC follows for grey literature.

The news hasn't exactly been easy to sift through frankly.

Word of advice: don't pay attention to the news when it comes to science issues. While there are some good science writers out there, a huge fraction of the science "news" has been horrifyingly bad. The public media elevates issues to "debate" that have long been settled in the science. Things like whether or not human-release of CO2 has caused the recent warming are settled science. You can see this quite easily by looking at studies like this one:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

With that study, you can see quite clearly that the more likely they are to understand the issues at hand, the more likely they are to agree that humans have caused climate change.

The next thing to pay attention to, if you don't want to take the time to really get into and understand the science (which can be a rather daunting task), is to look at the tactics of debate. If you look closely, you should see one side of the debate continually attempting to draw the discussion to the evidence. And not just any evidence, but general, overall trends in the evidence. The other side of the debate would rather attack people than look at evidence, and when examining evidence prefers to point out specific, individual pieces disconnected in time and space.

Perhaps so, but the Earth is presently between ice ages so the notion that the sun's output is "constant" over longer periods of time is a bit harder to swallow.

It's not. The Sun's output has increased gradually over its lifetime. But the largest reasonably long-term change in the Earth's climate is due to the Milankovitch cycles, which are due to a precession of the Earth's tilt, which basically means that at different parts of this cycle the Earth is at a different season when it's closest to the Sun. This 26,000 year cycle is one of the most significant causes of ice ages (though apparently not the only one: major volcanic eruptions appear to be another).

 

[Greatcloud]

Overall the GW temperture is down from a high of .6 to .2 overall and when are we going to reach 0. I ask the question and I put it to you and I leave it with you.

 

[Chalnoth]

Overall the GW temperture is down from a high of .6 to .2 overall and when are we going to reach 0. I ask the question and I put it to you and I leave it with you.

According to whom?

Gistemp puts us at 0.83C temperature anomaly as of March.
AMSU-A puts us at warmer than any previous year on record for the near-surface layer (ch04). This is going back through 1998.

So what are you looking at?

 

[Greatcloud]

Global temps are climate. Your daily temperture is weather.





CO2