New Little Ice Age

[FactFinder]

This is interesting reading for those of us who believe the sun rather than man decides the climate.

LANDSCHEIDT - New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?

Abstract:

Analysis of the sun's varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC's speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8° C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the 80 to 90-year Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun's oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove skillful as other long-range forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun's orbital motion, have turned out correct as for instance the prediction of the last three El Niños years before the respective event.

1. Introduction

The continuing debate about man-made global warming has reached a crucial stage. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), no longer publishes well defined “best estimate projections” of global temperature rise to the year 2100 caused by increases in greenhouse gas accumulations in the atmosphere, but publicizes “storylines” to speculate about warming as high as 5.8° C till 2100. The editors of the journal Science (2002), however, comment on the increasing number of publications that point to varying solar activity as a strong factor in climate change: “As more and more wiggles matching the waxing and waning of the sun show up in records of past climate, researchers are grudgingly taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate change. They have included solar variability in their simulations of the past century's warming. And the sun seems to have played a pivotal role in triggering droughts and cold snaps.”

 

[Old Rocks]

The sun has always been taken as serious factor in climate. However, if we are having the beginning of a Maunder Minimum, then why are we still having years in the top ten for warmth? Could it be that the increase in GHGs is actually overpowering the effect of a lessoned TSI? One might also consider that the present effects from the GHGs in the atmosphere reflect the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere 50 years ago, due to the inertia in the climate system.

What we are looking at is a change, at present, from a high of 1367+ Wm squared, to 1366 Wm squared. That is hardly enough to seriously impact the present climate. In fact, the strong La Nina of 2007-2008 impacted the weather far more. And we still have most of the years since 1998 in the top ten for warmth.

welcome to pmodwrc

 

[Big Black Dog]

Hot today, cold tomorrow... Can't the environmental wackos decide which it's going to be? I'm tired of changing my clothes so often.

 

[Old Rocks]

One of the primary predictions of global warming is that the weather swings will be wider and wilder, with an overall warming. Now, Dog, perhaps were you to investigate the issue, rather than just engaging in mindless name calling, you might have something intelligent to say.

 

[elvis]

One of the primary predictions of global warming is that the weather swings will be wider and wilder, with an overall warming. Now, Dog, perhaps were you to investigate the issue, rather than just engaging in mindless name calling, you might have something intelligent to say.

yeah not that you've ever called anyone names on here, fuckstain.

 

[FactFinder]

The sun has always been taken as serious factor in climate. However, if we are having the beginning of a Maunder Minimum, then why are we still having years in the top ten for warmth? Could it be that the increase in GHGs is actually overpowering the effect of a lessoned TSI? One might also consider that the present effects from the GHGs in the atmosphere reflect the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere 50 years ago, due to the inertia in the climate system.

What we are looking at is a change, at present, from a high of 1367+ Wm squared, to 1366 Wm squared. That is hardly enough to seriously impact the present climate. In fact, the strong La Nina of 2007-2008 impacted the weather far more. And we still have most of the years since 1998 in the top ten for warmth.

welcome to pmodwrc

We are not "still having years in the top ten". Those days are behind us Rocks. They will, in the AGW followers minds, become their golden age/good ole days.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists-must-explain-or-resign/

Mr McIntyre’s analysis of the data – which he had been asking for since 2003 – suggests that scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the Hadley Centre associated with the UK Met. Office have been using only a small subset of the available data to make their claims that recent years have been the hottest of the last millennium. When the entire data set is used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears completely. [1]

 

[FactFinder]

It just keeps getting worse for those promoting Al Gore's carbon credits company.

Treemometers: A new scientific scandal

From this we know that the Yamal data set uses just 12 trees from a larger set to produce its dramatic recent trend. Yet many more were cored, and a larger data set (of 34) from the vicinity shows no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages.

In all there are 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set, of which ten were alive 1990. All 12 cores selected show strong growth since the mid-19th century. The implication is clear: the dozen were cherry-picked.

Treemometers: A new scientific scandal • The Register

 

[Old Rocks]

Factfinder, the post concerning the temps for this year was from Roy Spencer. He has been one of the critics of global warming data. Yet he states that the past three months have shown a very strong upturn tempertures on the global scale.

 

[Old Rocks]

Biography
McIntyre is, according to the Wall Street Journal, a "semiretired Toronto minerals consultant" who has spent "two years and about $5,000 of his own money trying to double-check the influential graphic" known as the "hockey stick" that illustrates a reconstruction of average surface temperatures in the Northern hemisphere, created by University of Virginia climatologist Michael Mann. He does not have an advanced degree and has published two articles in the journal Energy and Environment, which has become a venue for skeptics and is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals.[3]

McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor." [4] He is the former President of Dumont Nickel Inc., and was President of Northwest Exploration Company Limited, the predecessor company to CGX Energy Inc. As of 2003, he was the strategic advisor of CGX Energy Inc. He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada. [5]

At the 2007 Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, McIntyre gave a joint presentation on hurricanes and climate change with Roger Pielke Jr.[6]

[edit]The Hockey Stick Study Controversy
Stephen McIntyre is especially known for his critique of Michael E. Mann's hockey stick study, a "reconstruction of temperatures over the past 1,000 years based on records captured in tree rings, corals and other markers," which shows temperatures swinging sharply upward in the 20th century.[7] Articles written by McIntyre, along with colleague Ross McKitrick, critical of Mann's hockey stick study led to congressional inquiry into the scientific methods of the studies. Independent research has found that McIntyre's critique may have "limited significance." Researchers at the GKSS Research Center in Geesthacht, Germany, confirmed "a glitch" in Dr. Mann's work but "found this glitch to be of very minor significance."[8]

In recent years, McIntyre has extended his criticisms to also address the "spaghetti chart"; McIntyre argues that all the new reconstructions which confirmed Mann's earlier results shared some common proxies and that minor changes/updates with regard to proxy selection completely changed the results, again casting doubt on the conclusion that modern-era temperatures are unusual.[1]

[edit]Contact details

Steve McIntyre - SourceWatch

 

[Old Rocks]

There is far more than 252 cores available for study. There are cores world wide, and many go back past 10,000 years ago.

The ULTIMATE tree-ring pages!

 

[Chris]

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere grows every day, every minute, every second. Soon we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet we are still losing 6.1% of the polar ice cap every decade.

 

[FactFinder]

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere grows every day, every minute, every second. Soon we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet we are still losing 6.1% of the polar ice cap every decade.

..and yet the most we MAY effect the temperature is a paltry .8 degrees within the next 100 hundred years. Ya think just maybe there is a bit of an overreaction here.

Ya think just maybe we were meant to be on the planet and effect it the way we have? We are a part of the planet and a crucial one. Our activities just MAY have enough of a moderating influence to help the rest of the animal kingdom survive the inevitable cooling.

 

[FactFinder]

There is far more than 252 cores available for study. There are cores world wide, and many go back past 10,000 years ago.

The ULTIMATE tree-ring pages!

Well then why did they cherry pick 12?

..and don't these researchers have any compassion for the tree huggers?

 

[Old Rocks]

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere grows every day, every minute, every second. Soon we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet we are still losing 6.1% of the polar ice cap every decade.

..and yet the most we MAY effect the temperature is a paltry .8 degrees within the next 100 hundred years. Ya think just maybe there is a bit of an overreaction here.

Ya think just maybe we were meant to be on the planet and effect it the way we have? We are a part of the planet and a crucial one. Our activities just MAY have enough of a moderating influence to help the rest of the animal kingdom survive the inevitable cooling.

Or it may go up by 20 degrees F.



M.I.T. Doubles Its 2095 Warming Projection To 10°F — With 866 Ppm And Arctic Warming of 20°F
Joe Romm, 21 May 09
Today's question: How the heck does the Greenland ice sheet survive accelerated disintegration from projected 20°F warming by the 2090s?


I previously blogged on how the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change has joined the climate realists — the growing group of scientists who understand that the business as usual emissions path leads to unmitigated catastrophe (see "Hadley Center: "Catastrophic" 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path" and below).

Back in January, the Program issued a remarkable report in January, by over a dozen leading experts, doubling their 2095 warming projection to 5.2°C. The media mostly ignored it, which is no surprise, since the media generally ignores the realists in general (see U.S. media largely ignores latest warning from climate scientists: “Recent observations confirm … the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised” — 1000 ppm

Now, the MIT study has been published in a peer-reviewed journal -- The American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate (subs. req'd) -- which obviously it makes it much more credible and high-profile. Reuters has a good story on it, "Global warming could be twice as bad as forecast." The study concludes:
Worldchanging: Bright Green: M.I.T. Doubles Its 2095 Warming Projection To 10°F — With 866 Ppm And Arctic Warming of 20°F

 

[Big Black Dog]

One of the primary predictions of global warming is that the weather swings will be wider and wilder, with an overall warming. Now, Dog, perhaps were you to investigate the issue, rather than just engaging in mindless name calling, you might have something intelligent to say.

I'm intelligent enough to be able to spot pure bullshit when I see it. Looks like Al Gore has his hooks in you like the rest of the global warming/cooling sheep. Most likely you even believe in Santa Claus.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dog, you repeat mindless talking points very well. Now show some real scientific data to back your statements. Ths has litlle to do with Al Gore. He is just a very good presenter of the information the scientists have been showing us for nearly fifty years now.

 

[elvis]

One of the primary predictions of global warming is that the weather swings will be wider and wilder, with an overall warming. Now, Dog, perhaps were you to investigate the issue, rather than just engaging in mindless name calling, you might have something intelligent to say.

I'm intelligent enough to be able to spot pure bullshit when I see it. Looks like Al Gore has his hooks in you like the rest of the global warming/cooling sheep. Most likely you even believe in Santa Claus.

He's gonna throw his bedpan again.

 

[Chris]

Dog, you repeat mindless talking points very well. Now show some real scientific data to back your statements. Ths has litlle to do with Al Gore. He is just a very good presenter of the information the scientists have been showing us for nearly fifty years now.

That's it exactly.

 

[FactFinder]

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere grows every day, every minute, every second. Soon we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet we are still losing 6.1% of the polar ice cap every decade.

..and yet the most we MAY effect the temperature is a paltry .8 degrees within the next 100 hundred years. Ya think just maybe there is a bit of an overreaction here.

Ya think just maybe we were meant to be on the planet and effect it the way we have? We are a part of the planet and a crucial one. Our activities just MAY have enough of a moderating influence to help the rest of the animal kingdom survive the inevitable cooling.

Or it may go up by 20 degrees F.



M.I.T. Doubles Its 2095 Warming Projection To 10°F — With 866 Ppm And Arctic Warming of 20°F
Joe Romm, 21 May 09
Today's question: How the heck does the Greenland ice sheet survive accelerated disintegration from projected 20°F warming by the 2090s?


I previously blogged on how the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change has joined the climate realists — the growing group of scientists who understand that the business as usual emissions path leads to unmitigated catastrophe (see "Hadley Center: "Catastrophic" 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path" and below).

Back in January, the Program issued a remarkable report in January, by over a dozen leading experts, doubling their 2095 warming projection to 5.2°C. The media mostly ignored it, which is no surprise, since the media generally ignores the realists in general (see U.S. media largely ignores latest warning from climate scientists: “Recent observations confirm … the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised” — 1000 ppm

Now, the MIT study has been published in a peer-reviewed journal -- The American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate (subs. req'd) -- which obviously it makes it much more credible and high-profile. Reuters has a good story on it, "Global warming could be twice as bad as forecast." The study concludes:
Worldchanging: Bright Green: M.I.T. Doubles Its 2095 Warming Projection To 10°F — With 866 Ppm And Arctic Warming of 20°F

Cold Facts on Global Warming
Calculating the actual temperature increase
So, what is the actual increase? Interestingly enough, that is easy to estimate--and without resorting to complex computer models.

Because a linear increase in temperature requires an exponential increase in carbon dioxide (thanks to the physics of radiation absorption described above), we know that the next two-fold increase in CO2 will produce exactly the same temperature increase as the previous two-fold increase. Although we haven't had a two-fold increase yet, it is easy to calculate from the observed values what to expect.

Between 1900 and 2000, atmospheric CO2 increased from 295 to 365 ppm, while temperatures increased about 0.57 degrees C (using the value cited by Al Gore and others). It is simple to calculate the proportionality constant (call it 'k') between the observed increase in CO2 and the observed temperature increase:

Note added 2/12/2009: Is 'k' a constant?
Note that k takes into account all of the Earth's adaptation to the increased carbon dioxide: changes in reflectivity due to changing ice cover, changes in cloud cover, and so on. Some might still argue, however, that k is not a constant, but decreases with temperature. But what could cause k to decrease? All climatological factors have already been ruled out. In order for k to be a variable, the laws of absorption of radiation would have to be change with temperature in a fundamentally new way, and not by a small amount: k would have to decrease by 37% to raise ΔT by even one degree. No physical process in any complex system like the atmosphere changes this dramatically with temperature. Spectroscopists have been studying light absorption for over 340 years. One of them would certainly have noticed such a huge temperature sensitivity by now.

Also consider that the temperature increase is only 1-2 degrees C. This is much smaller than the seasonal variation, the variation between different locations on the Earth, or even the variation between day and night temperatures. The laws of physics don't change when you go from New York to New Jersey. Questioning whether k is a constant is grasping at straws. The question people should be asking is: is k equal to zero?

This shows that doubling CO2 over its current values should increase the earth's temperature by about 1.85 degrees C. Doubling it again would raise the temperature another 1.85 degrees C. Since these numbers are based on actual measurements, not models, they include the effects of amplification, if we make the reasonable assumption that the same amplification mechanisms that occurred previously will also occur in a world that is two degrees warmer.

If we want to include other greenhouse gases, such as methane, in the calculation, we need to use the "effective" CO2 concentrations instead. These effective CO2 numbers are less solid than the CO2-only numbers, but the best estimates are that effective CO2 increased from 305 to about 450 ppm during the 20th century[12]. Using these numbers, k becomes 0.6823 and the predicted ΔT becomes 1.02 degrees.

These estimates assume that the correlation between global temperature and carbon dioxide is causal in nature. This remains to be proved. Therefore, the 1.02 and 1.85 degree estimates should also be regarded as upper limits.

And this article does not even take into account the cooling that is occurring due to low solar activity

 

[FactFinder]

Cold Facts on Global Warming

Note added 1/5/2008:
Some authors [15] suggest that the percentage of warming attributable to CO2 is not 5%, but is closer to 26%. It is easy to show why the 26% estimate (and estimates similar to it) are almost certainly wrong. We know that the total warming from greenhouse gases is 33K. If 26% of this was from CO2, then doubling CO2 would raise temperatures by 0.26*33 or 8.6K. Since the 26% estimate is based on total radiation absorbed, and not the amount of warming, we would have to add secondary feedback effects to this figure. This would double or even triple the value, giving us a predicted temperature increase of up to 25° C, or a predicted global average temperature of 40°C (104°F). Balmy!

Whether the exact number is 5% or 9%, because our estimate is based on the percentage of warming, not percentage of radiation absorbed, that is attributable to CO2, feedbacks in the estimate here are automatically taken into account. However, because of the large uncertainty about the actual value, the estimate from Fig. 3 (which derives an estimate from extrapolation of current trends) is probably more accurate.

However, we can also check the plausibility of the IPCC's result by asking the following question: What number would result if we calculated backwards from the IPCC estimates?

Using the same assumption of linearity, if a 9 degree increase resulted from the above-mentioned increase of greenhouse gas levels, the current greenhouse gas level (which is by definition 100%) would be equivalent to a greenhouse gas-induced temperature increase of at least 107 degrees C. This means the for the 9 degree figure to be correct, the current global temperature would have to be at least 255 + 107 - 273 = 89 degrees centigrade, or 192° Fahrenheit! A model that predicts a current-day temperature well above the highest-ever observed temperature is clearly in need of serious tweaking. Even a 5 degree projection predicts current-day temperatures of 41°C (106°F). These results clearly cannot be reconciled with observations.