Global Warming is so 90's

[RickG]

Why does every layman think they can enlighten us about GW? Anyone want to have a go at disproving Bohr's model of the atom while you're at it? The vast majority of the scientists in the field that covers GW say it's happening. Even if you convince the rubes on this forum, what are we against the masses of scientists who know what they're talking about?

All anyone needs to do is look at their sources which come from political think tanks and blogs.

 

[Greatcloud]

In the long term GW will yield to an ice age. If the population of the world can become high tech enough we can weather a long ice age.

Respected sources

 

[RickG]

In the long term GW will yield to an ice age. If the population of the world can become high tech enough we can weather a long ice age.

Respected sources

No ice age is expected anytime soon.

 

[Greatcloud]

No ice age is expected anytime soon.

Yes I know that Rick and I am assuming that in the far future mankind will weather any length of any ice age we do have , because one is in our future.

 

[Greatcloud]

Getting back to the OP, the TSI has been at an big high since 1990-2010. Now however we are faced with Solar cycle 25 which will be a very low TSI. GW may be in the past we will have to wait and see.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

GW may be in the past we will have to wait and see.

Yes!

Not sure how long we'll have to wait since we've obviously been through a few cycles, but if we wait longer maybe it'll become "too late"!

But what do the "scientists" have to say (We know they're all idiots and stuff, unlike anonymous intarwebs posters who are the fount of all knowledge):

Huh. Guess they are all idiots aren't they?

Greatcloud, please publish your erudition ASAP!

 

[TeddyReceptus]

...with sun cycle 25 we may be having another modern LIA ...Our climate is going to change its going to take a downturn in temperature mark my words.

No ice age is expected anytime soon.

Yes I know that Rick

Clear as rain!

 

[RickG]

Getting back to the OP, the TSI has been at an big high since 1990-2010. Now however we are faced with Solar cycle 25 which will be a very low TSI. GW may be in the past we will have to wait and see.

Total Solar Irradiance has decreased slightly since the 1970's as can be seen below from three different satellite sources. There was no high 1990-2010.

(Source: PMOD/WRC)

Neither climatolgists nor solar physicists are saying global cooling is going to occur because of solar cycle 25.

RealClimate: What if the Sun went into a new Grand Minimum?

Research shows in fact that under current anthropogenic conditions, a Maunder Minimum would only result in 0.3 deg C cooling which would be off-set by far with an expected 4.0 deg C warming by 2100.

On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth (Stefan Rahmstorf and Georg feulner)

One again, I suggest sourcing the scientific literature and agency's (PMOD/WRC, NASA, WMO, etc.) who study this, rather than the media, political think tanks and denial blogs to find out what the science really says.

 

[Greatcloud]

Total Solar Irradiance has decreased slightly since the 1970's as can be seen below from three different satellite sources. There was not high 1990-2010.

(Source: PMOD/WRC)

Neither climatolgists nor solar physicists are saying global cooling is going to occur because of solar cycle 25.

RealClimate: What if the Sun went into a new Grand Minimum?

Research shows in fact that under current anthropogenic conditions, a Maunder Minimum would only result in 0.3 deg C cooling which would be off-set by far with an expected 4.0 deg C warming by 2100.

On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth (Stefan Rahmstorf and Georg feulner)

One again, I suggest sourcing the scientific literature and agency's (PMOD/WRC, NASA, WMO, etc.) who study this, rather than the media, political think tanks and denial blogs to find out what the science really says.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Solanki et al. 2004 11,000 Year Sunspot Number Reconstruction


EXCERPT:.............................According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades

 

[Elendur]

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Solanki et al. 2004 11,000 Year Sunspot Number Reconstruction

FYI that graph they're presenting is for the last 11'000 years.
(

)

RickG presented a set of graphs for the years 1978-2012.

In comparison, those 34 years would represent less than 1/10 the distance to the first line. It's obvious that graph is unfit to represent your cause.


Also:

...
we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.

 

[RickG]

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Solanki et al. 2004 11,000 Year Sunspot Number Reconstruction


EXCERPT:.............................According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades

How does that support your coming ice age? Please note what I put in bold from the NOAA abstract.

Also from the NOAA source. Not very supportive of what you are suggesting, is it. In fact, the sun spot number seems to higher during the LIA than the MWP.

So, let's look at another graph, one that has already been posted but I think it is quite revealing. And BTW, did you not visit the sources I supplied?

 

[Greatcloud]

Here you go this is a better website for what I want to say . Please scroll down to the graphs.

Solar Evidence of Global Warming

 

[Elendur]

Here you go this is a better website for what I want to say . Please scroll down to the graphs.

Solar Evidence of Global Warming

Better? There's ~70 graphs scattered on that page.

 

[Greatcloud]

[http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html] in which the authors state “the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.”

For the past 70 years solar activity has been high.




http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512120523.htm

 

[Elendur]

[http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html] in which the authors state “the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.”

For the past 70 years solar activity has been high.

That's the same link you posted before in post #49.

I refer to post #50 where I answered.

 

[Greatcloud]

This is the website that says what I believe it is a long one and it refutes AGW very well. I already posted it but you never even read it you said it was too long. So this is my arguement.

Solar Evidence of Global Warming

 

[RickG]

Here you go this is a better website for what I want to say . Please scroll down to the graphs.

Solar Evidence of Global Warming

Right off the bat I see a misrepresentation in the first sentence.

• "The conclusion that the global warming in the latter part of the 20th century is a result of anthropogenic CO2, is based on computerized climate models."

That is false, it is based on actual recorded data.

(Source: NASA/GISS)


As I move further down the page I encounter the following figure.

The description reads:

• The following figures are from the IPCC report Summary for Policy Makers (Feb 2007). Left - a) (from Fig SPM-4) compares decadal temperature averages (black line) with the result of model simulations. The lower (blue) band shows the results of 19 simulations from 5 climate models using only the natural forcings due to solar activity and volcanoes. The upper (pink) bands matching the temperature lines show the results of 58 simulations from 14 climate models using both natural and anthropogenic forcings

When I go to the actual source: FAQ 9.2 - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

• FAQ 9.2, Figure 1. Temperature changes relative to the corresponding average for 1901-1950 (°C) from decade to decade from 1906 to 2005 over the Earth’s continents, as well as the entire globe, global land area and the global ocean (lower graphs). The black line indicates observed temperature change, while the coloured bands show the combined range covered by 90% of recent model simulations. Red indicates simulations that include natural and human factors, while blue indicates simulations that include only natural factors. Dashed black lines indicate decades and continental regions for which there are substantially fewer observations.

Do I really need to look further down at the solar stuff? I think not.


Once again. When are you going to look the "actual science", instead of your more than obvious pseudoscience denial sources?


Here: Try looking at what the IPCC actually says about the solar influence.


TS.2.4 Radiative Forcing Due to Solar Activity and Volcanic Eruptions - AR4 WGI Technical Summary

 

[Greatcloud]

Rick there is nothing wrong with this website it is not psudeo-science it is hard science and I accept it you do not.

What about the fact that the global tempatures have been static for the last decade and more. Why are they not going up ?

 

[RickG]

Rick there is nothing wrong with this website it is not psudeo-science it is hard science and I accept it you do not.

What about the fact that the global tempatures have been static for the last decade and more. Why are they not going up ?

It is deliberate misrepresentaion. I gave you documentation with what they had and claimed and linked back to the original source which did not support what your pseudoscientific denial site.

Look at the real science by the real scientists. Are you afraid to?

I believe it was another one of the three GW threads you started at once so I'll post it again in this thread. There is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that GW is happening and that it is mostly due to human causes.

Source: (Anderegg 2010).

Those are not opinions. It is the conclusion of published research in the peer review literature.

Additionally, the following scientific organizations have published official statements agreeing that the current warming trend is human caused. Again, follow each of the links and read their statements.

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Astronomical Society
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Physics
• American Meteorological Society
• American Physical Society
• Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
• British Antarctic Survey
• Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• Environmental Protection Agency
• European Federation of Geologists
• European Geosciences Union
• European Physical Society
• Federation of American Scientists
• Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
• Geological Society of America
• Geological Society of Australia
• International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
• International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
• National Center for Atmospheric Research
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Royal Meteorological Society
• Royal Society of the UK

AGAIN, Look at the real science by the real scientists.

 

[SkyWriting]

Those are not opinions. It is the conclusion of published research in the peer review literature....AGAIN, Look at the real science by the real scientists.

Link #1.

This one has all the same SCIENCE as a speech by Karl Heinrich Marx about why things need to change.
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

Link #2

Guys with telescopes have an opinion about climate? So what?

Link #3.....(This is what happens when a guy Cuts & Pastes a WALL-O-TEXT with the intention of overwhelming the readers into submission. VERY poor form Sir. Not scientific and thorough at all.)

Link #3 This link is simply a list of references to the opinions of other groups. The first reference is to the "IPCC".
This referance for the citation is missing. So that's an authority? Groups who don't know how to create referances for their own papers?

There is mention of IPCC in reference #2 though. Lets see if that works:

An error has occurred.

Page does not exist
Address used: http://www.interacademycouncil.net/default.aspx?id=13042
Item id: 13042

So much for the WALL-O-TEXT method. This poster uses poor form and outdated or non existent references.
I guess this was allowed where he went to college. I get MY papers returned promptly if I do this.

Look at the real science by the real scientists. Are you afraid to?

You should be. This list is a royal waste of time.

There is no doubt that some of these groups have a database of facts to work with.
If it can't be reproduced, it's not science. Their conclusions are pure opinion,
with their "statements" showing all the same style as propaganda.
The reason it's all opinion? It has to be. There is no way to falsify
predictions about the future.