I believe the weather we have been having is unusual. I would like to know if it is a result of Global warming. Thanks for comments. Joe L. Ogan
However, there are many articles indicating that more of the weak tornadoes are being detected now than had happened in the past. I.E. We now are close to the technology to detect every single dust devil.
But while the numbers are not contested, their significance most certainly is. Another study considered how this information was being collected, and research suggested that the increase in reported storms was due to improved monitoring rather than more storms actually taking place.
==Quote=
Globally (not just in the North Atlantic), there is an average of about 90 tropical storms every year. According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR4), globally "[t]here is no clear trend in the annual numbers [i.e. frequency] of tropical cyclones."
However, in the North Atlantic there has been a clear increase in the frequency of tropical storms and major hurricanes. From 1850-1990, the long-term average number of tropical storms was about 10, including about 5 hurricanes. For the period of 1998-2007, the average is about 15 tropical storms per year, including about 8 hurricanes. This increase in frequency correlates strongly with the rise in North Atlantic sea surface temperature, and recent peer-reviewed scientific studies link this temperature increase to global warming.
===(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skepticalscience.com%2Fpics%2FNATS_frequency.gif&hash=c9503f7dffea6ef92637b831d6d750c7)
Image from here. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm)
It's your local weather changing, for better or worse, probably worse.
As most of the weather phenomena in our world everything seems linked to everything else. To attach a secure vote of confidence to a open non-linear system? Can you do that?
But while the numbers are not contested, their significance most certainly is. Another study considered how this information was being collected, and research suggested that the increase in reported storms was due to improved monitoring rather than more storms actually taking place.
And to cap it off, two recent peer-reviewed studies completely contradict each other. One paper predicts considerably more storms due to global warming. Another paper suggests the exact opposite – that there will be fewer storms in the future.
It's your local weather changing, for better or worse, probably worse.Unless you're in Montana. :)
http://beta.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/intense-northeast-heat-storms_2011-06-07Whew...
Over the past half-century, we have become used to planetary scares. .. late Sixties .. a population explosion .. global starvation. .. later .. the world was running out of natural resources. By the Seventies .. a new Ice Age. .. the latest scare, global warming, has engaged the political and opinion-forming classes to a greater extent than any of these. .. this fashionable belief has led the present Labour Government, enthusiastically supported by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, to commit itself to a policy of drastically cutting back carbon dioxide emissions - at huge cost to the British economy and to the living standards not merely of this generation, but of our children's generation, too. .. most of those scientists who speak with such certainty about global warming and climate change are not climate scientists, or Earth scientists of any kind, and thus have no special knowledge to contributehttp://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=1:latest&id=51:agw-zealotry-could-damage-our-earth-far-more-than-climate-change (http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=1:latest&id=51:agw-zealotry-could-damage-our-earth-far-more-than-climate-change). Try his book “An Appeal To Reason: A Cool Look At Global Warming” amazon link deleted.
Dozens of think tank cosponsors and hundreds of scientists will gather in an effort to “restore the scientific method” to its rightful place in the debate over the causes, consequences, and policy implications of climate change. The theme of the conference, “Restoring the Scientific Method,” acknowledges the fact that claims of scientific certainty and predictions of climate catastrophes are based on “post-normal science,” which substitutes claims of consensus for the scientific method. This choice has had terrible consequences for science and society. Abandoning the scientific method led to the “Climategate” scandal and the errors and abuses of peer review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)http://climateconference.heartland.org/ (http://climateconference.heartland.org/).
There are those who support the view which Professor Steven Schneider expressed in 1989 about the manner in which climate science should be presented. He said "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest" http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm (http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm). My interpretation of that statement is that it is up to each of us to decide whether to lie or not. This is expected of politicians and those who earn their living through the media but not of those in a position of trust like physicians and researchersI think that Pete Ridley’s opinion on that is close to the bulls-eye.
There is a huge amount of politics involved herealthough I think that it’s a gross understatement. The whole thing is driven by the power-hungry like Strong, Gore, Soros, etc. supported by political organisations like the UN and EU for reasons far removed from controlling the global climates.
I hope that one upshot is a re-examination of our use of resources and energybut not a further waste of resources installing things like those useless wind turbines or systems for sequestering that essential, life-supporting substance CO2 from our industrial, commercial and domestic emissions. Yes, lets research alternative energy sources so that we are ready for when those wonderful fossil fuels expire, but that won’t be for centuries yet. Put those wasted resources to good use minimising genuine pollutants from our emissions, improving repairing and preventing unnecessary damage to the natural envirnment, but most importantly of all, helping humans throughout the world to improve their enjoyment of life.
This is a science websiteit is not only my comments on this forum that have brought politics into the discussions. If you don’t believe me have another read of the comments on this topic. The scientific debate about the causes of changes in global temperature (whether hotter or colder) and rainfall (more or less) - used as the basis for defining the different global clmates (see Koppen) was destroyed by interference from the power-hungry, the politicians and the environmentalists long before I became involved.
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing[/quoteor that I
don't believe it can trap heat in the atmosphere? No, I thought not.
There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers. But EVERYTHING? Or even most things? Take 100 lines of evidence, discard 5 of them, and you’re still left with 95 and large risk management problemhttp://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/ (http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/).
Is the unusual weather we have been having a result of global warming?– nope, it’s Mother Nature doing her usual thing.
According to the most recent IPCC report (2007), the human component became apparent only after 1957, and it amounts to “most” of the 0.7 degree rise since thenI could be wrong but I think that is a rather distorted version of what the IPCC AR4 WG1 actually said. More correctly this was
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrationshttp://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html#footnote12 (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html#footnote12) which is somewhat different to what Muller testified. If you can point me to the part in AR4 WG1 where that bit about 1957 is stated then I’d appreciate it because I haven’t found it. Maybe Muller misinterpreted
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been measured directly with high precision since 1957http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/097.htm (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/097.htm), which I believe was simply referring to the start of Keeling’s measurements http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/). Muller also omitted to mention that very important piece of IPCC speculation, “very likely”.
I suggest that Congress consider the creation of a Climate-ARPA to facilitate the study of climate issues .. I was asked what legislation could advance our knowledge of climate change. After some consideration, I felt that the creation of a Climate Advanced Research Project Agency, or Climate-ARPA, could help .. Climate-ARPA could be an organization that provides quick funding to worthwhile projects without regard to whether they support or challenge current understanding. Now I wonder which organisations he has in mind to receive such funding - the University of California, Berkeley’s Earth Surface Temperature Project perhaps? After all, "money talks" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkRIbUT6u7Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkRIbUT6u7Q).
If you can point me to the part in AR4 WG1 where that bit about 1957 is stated then I’d appreciate it because I haven’t found itThat bit about 1957 is Muller’s statement that
According to the most recent IPCC report (2007), the human component became apparent only after 1957, and it amounts to “most” of the 0.7 degree rise since thennot just a tiny piece about 1957. It’s the fact that Muller appears to me to have taken that enormous jump from a speculative “very likely” to a confident
the human component .. amounts to “most” of the 0.7 degree rise since thenThat’s just the kind of distortion of the WG1 scientific report that was presented in the SPM and the politicians involved love to see - the removal of uncertainty by any means possible.
some people trying to discredit himI think that most of us sceptics are more concerned about trying to get to the facts rather than discrediting anyone. There are those who bring discredit upon themselves through distorting the facts, whether deliberately, through ignorance or accidentally.
I think that most of us sceptics are more concerned about trying to get to the facts rather than discrediting anyone.
Why then is he rubbish? Because he is still basically clueless about climate scienceIt isn’t usual for me to think along the same lines as Connolley but I was unable to seriously argue against much of what he wrote in that article.
assuming that today 95% CO2 is from nature & 5% from man, before fossil fuels it was 100% nature from volcanoes & forest fires which pollute & block the sun with particulates & allow some cooling from blocked sunlight
PBS has a documentary "Global Cooling" which is interesting
That is a LOT of carbon.
the "industrial" CO2 increases has been from 280ppm to 380ppmyou are implying that this CO2 increase is directly and totally due to our use of fossil fuels since the start of the industrial revolution. If my assumption is correct then is your assumption that we have cause a 35% increase flawed in any way? My understanding of those figures from the IPCC is that natural emissions account for 96% of that 35% increase. Of course we have to be a bit suspicious of those pre-industrial figures don’t we. After all, they come from air “trapped” in ice, which may not be a reliable record of the real atmospheric composition.
30 gigatons of CO2 into the air every year. That is a LOT of carbonneeds to be viewed in the context of natural emissions of CO2, which according to the IPCC amount to 697GtCO2 per year. Doesn’t that make natural emissions (87% of the total) look far larger by comparison? Also, let’s not overlook the IPCC statement that
Gross fluxes generally have uncertainties of more than ±20%. On top of that the estimated concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than a mere 0.04% even during this claimed unusually warm period.
most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrationsand of Professor Muller’s interpretation of it
According to the most recent IPCC report (2007), the human component became apparent only after 1957, and it amounts to “most” of the 0.7 degree rise since thenThose claims provide another example of conclusions drawn from an assumption that remains to be validated.
The first, as more and more eminent scientists are finding the courage to point out (the most recent being the distinguished physicist Professor William Happer of Princeton University), is that it is far from clear that there is a serious problem — let alone a catastrophic one — of global warming at allhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002333/Nigel-Lawson-says-Coalitions-absurd-energy-policy-damaging-industry-adding-hundreds-pounds-familys-fuel-bills.html#ixzz1PHOoKHWR (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002333/Nigel-Lawson-says-Coalitions-absurd-energy-policy-damaging-industry-adding-hundreds-pounds-familys-fuel-bills.html#ixzz1PHOoKHWR).
the most recent being .. Professor William HapperCyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, because he has been presenting his sceptical arguments for at least a couple of years. It seems that his most recent article was “The Truth About Greenhouse Gases: The dubious science of the climate crusaders” http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases) in which he says
I want to discuss a contemporary moral epidemic: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet. The “climate crusade” is one characterized by true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types—even children’s crusades—all based on contested science and dubious claimsHapper made a statement on climate change before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in February 2009 http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=84462e2d-6bff-4983-a574-31f5ae8e8a42 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=84462e2d-6bff-4983-a574-31f5ae8e8a42) part of which can be seen at http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/william-happer-wants-to-party-like-its-79999999-bc (http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/william-happer-wants-to-party-like-its-79999999-bc) (don’t be fooled by the date of July 10, 2002 as it is just a hang-over from one of his earlier statements probably due to re-using the same document - http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Homeland_Security_National_Labs.asp (http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Homeland_Security_National_Labs.asp).
eminent scientists .. point out .. that it is far from clear that there is a serious problem — let alone a catastrophic onereminds me of others like Happer. While searching for a link between Grant Foster and Tamino I came across “Dog Brothers Public Forum” http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?action=printpage;topic=1454.0 (http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?action=printpage;topic=1454.0) which may find of interest as it mentions numerous scientists who converted from supporters to deniers of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis, including paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa, environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, and paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa. It also mentions Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski who Pete Ridley talked about on his “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?” thread http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=24442;sa=showPosts (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=24442;sa=showPosts).
Global Warming Ruled a Religion by British Judge
Attachment2.pdf. This attachment begins with what we regard as a libelous description of our choice of reviewers. Will Happer, though a physicist, was in charge of research at DOE including pioneering climate research. Moreover, he has, in fact, published professionally on atmospheric turbulence. He is also a member of the NAS.
Hi Imatfaal, I have no problem with that provided everyone else is encouraged to do the same.
Of course, if global temperatures continue the trend of the past 12 years or even start to fall then might not CO2 levels even start falling, with the risk of positive feedback driving us towards another ice age, with more floods, more droughts, more hurricanes and tornadoes, more earth quakes and volcanoes, polar bears frozen to the ice sheets. Thank goodness that’s all wild speculation based upon unfounded assumptions.
And in a worse scenario the ocean will become saturated, not able to take care of the CO2 any more instead 'breathing' it back, accelerating it beyond any understanding.
Yelder - I think it would be best if we avoided this thread becoming a repository for blog postings by politicians and interested by-standers. .. Let us try to keep to scientific questions, answers, and refutations .. The OP was "Is the unusual weather we have been having a result of global warming?" - let's .. try and advance the scientific debate on the original question
I believe the weather we have been having is unusual. I would like to know if it is a result of Global warmingmaking it quite clear that he was asking about the cause of recent weathr events, not the cause of global warming.
I think it would be best if we avoided this thread becoming a repository for blog postings by politicians and interested by-standers. .. Let us try to keep to scientific questions, answers, and refutations and allow those who wish to read further to find those articles for themselvesI took that to be a rebuke for posting comments and linking to articles that deviated from Joe’s original question and assume that the rebuke was directed at all who are commenting on this thread.
The debate is whether the warming is affected by man or part of a nature cycleimmediately took things off-course, with an immediate scare-mongering comment about our use of fossil fuels causing a global catastrophe. The very first link posted on this thread was not to a scientific paper about the cause of recent weather events but to a Discover magazine article on “Ocean Acidification: A Global Case of Osteoporosis” http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/16-ocean-acidification-a-global-case-of-osteoporosis/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C= (http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/16-ocean-acidification-a-global-case-of-osteoporosis/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=). The article wasn’t even written by a scientist, simply a journalist.
Such a knee-jerk reaction to blame everything on "Global Warming" and "CO2" is a disservice to climatology science, and the argument in generalalong with some very helpful information but once again we had some scare-mongering, e.g.
We are fast going for a tipping point, or possibly already past one
I think some of the worst excesses of colonial rule coupled with some of worst excess of post-colonial rule also have something to do with thatThis had absolutely nothing to do with the original question but not a squeak from moderation. A similar point was made on 04th May @ 21:09 on the “What does Iain Stewart's ‘CO2 experiment’ Demonstrate” thread http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38723.50 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38723.50) when saying
forum moderators appear to set their own rules here so we visitors have to abide by them
to Joe's original question, I think the answer is a definite maybe. .. The bottom line is that we really don't have a very good handle on what's going on, and, even if we did, there does not appear to be a quick fix(09/06/2011 @ 07:21 http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=39689.25 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=39689.25)).
The three main results of this study are the following: First, there exists a relation between solar activity and average tropospheric temperatures. Next, this relation depends both on the toroidal and the poloidal component of solar magnetism. The seven temperature sets that we studied here, evidently give different results but it is gratifying that they agree qualitatively in confirming the dependence of tropospheric temperature on both components of solar activity. The third result is that a comparison of observed with calculated temperatures shows residual peaks and valleys. Some of these are significant, appearing in all seven data sets studied here.
These results may be of importance for understanding the solar mechanisms that influence climate. The refereed literature contains 15 global or NH temperature data sets. Obviously all must be studied in order to further check the above results. It is also necessary to discuss the heliophysical and climatologic aspects of these findings. Such a study is presently underway with colleagues
Our results suggest that solar activities might have played a significant role in driving wet-dry climate oscillations at centennial scales in the interior of Eurasian continent
1. The statement by de Jager (2008) and dJ-D concerning the nature of recent warming is NOT supported by their statistical relation between solar magnetic variations and terrestrial temperatures.
2. Correlations between solar magnetic activity and terrestrial NH temperatures are likely to be contaminated by other forcings, not only in the 20th century but also in earlier centuries.
3. Models forced with solar irradiance variations and other established physical mechanisms have successfully simulated the evolution of the NH-temperature in the period under consideration, confirming the existence of a certain amount of correlation between NH temperatures and solar activity, especially in the period prior to the 20th century, where two temperature minima coincide with the Maunder and the Dalton minimum. The magnitude of the temperature variations is consistent with estimates in solar irradiance and volcanic forcing.
4. Attribution to solar magnetic variation through an unknown mechanisms as made by dJ-D seems premature, since the reconstructed NH temperature can also be understood in terms of solar irradiance variations and other known physical processes.
One may hope that a future more detailed analysis announced by De Jager and co-workers will help clarify these issues
we don’t know anything much useful(13/06/2011 @ 09:30:46 http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=39689.50 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=39689.50)).
.. unless you have something new to add to your original question, aside from editorial comments .. in this thread please stick to the question at hand, .. this is primarily a science Q&A site, not your personal blog(http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38723.msg353414#msg353414).
Many sceptics recognise that atmospheric CO2 has a small forcing effect on global temperatures (less than 2C for a doubling if all other drivers were to remain constant)Please take note of the “small forcing” bit. I certainly do not believe that
it's all about 'natural variations' in climate. Which then mean that we can't do a thing, just sit back and try to enjoy the 'ride'What I and many others believe is that our emissions of CO2 from our use of fossil fuels has an insignificant impact compared with natural process and drivers. As a consequence we have to continue doing what humans and other forms of life have had to do since becoming a part of this wonderful world, live with whatever Nature throws our way.
should try to cooperatebut as Climategate showed (see http://www.climate-gate.com) there are those having their own agenda who try very hard to gag sceptics.
It's not political Yelderis talking about the CACC propaganda being pushed out by supporters of the UN’s IPCC then that is simply wrong. It certainly isn’t science.
you only have a very short stay hereis referring to living on this wonderful earth enjoying a wonderful life then sadly, that’s true, but I’ve been lucky and suspect that others commenting here have been too. There are millions who don’t have it so good and can barely eke out an existence. That's the big global catastrophe, not global warming or cooling or climate change. Most of us who are fortunate enough to live in one of the developed economies could
do so much better than thatif that is referring to how we use the resources available to us, but maybe that wasn’t what was meant.
The reason (the west Antarctica ice sheet) rest there is due to its mass, if 'under-ice' streams hollow that sheet out, as well as it simultaneously melts from above, losing its mass as it gets lubricated from down under it can start to moveTaken along with the opinions of some that our use of fossil fuels is warming the globe catastrophically the unwary might be fooled into thinking that we were causing that movement. That is of course incorrect. As the Climate Institute says
Glaciers and ice sheets are large, slow-moving assemblages of ice(http://www.climate.org/topics/sea-level/index.html), but this is not a post-industrialisation phenomenon. It has always been the case when glaciers and ice sheets existed.
Before "global warming" started 18,000 years ago most of the earth was a frozen and arid wasteland. Over half of earth 's surface was covered by glaciers or extreme desert. Forests were rare. Not a very fun place to live(http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html). Thank goodness for that global warming, which happened then despite humans using very very little in the way of fossil fuels. Of course it wasn’t a non-stop period of warming since then. There have been cooling periods along the way and there will be again.
We are in the midst of the convergence of 3 major solar, ocean, and atmospheric cycles all heading in the direction of global cooling. Last year the Southern hemisphere experienced its coldest winter in 50 years and Europe just went through two particularly cold winters in a row, and the cooling trend has only just begun. The likelihood of a repeat of the Year Without a Summer in 1816 or The Great Frost of 1709 is growing with every day. .. Even though disaster is staring the world in the face, far too many climate scientists remain beholden to liberal anti-human politics to do anything useful about it. At a time they should be sounding the warning siren for society to prepare for possible food and energy shortages, most still amazingly insist that an insignificant atmospheric molecule (CO2) is more responsible for warming the Earth than the Sun(http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/36664).
Based on the data from the AMSR-E instrument on board the NASA Aqua satellite, sea surface temperatures just posted this week showed their steepest decline since the satellite was made operational in 2002. This major drop from the warm temperature levels seen in 2010 is also echoed by a dramatic decline in atmospheric temperatures in the lower troposphere, where we live, with the data coming from NOAA satellites. At present rates of descent, both ocean and atmospheric temperatures are likely to soon surpass the temperature lows set in the 2007-2008 period. Even with a small correction that is usually seen after such a rapid drop, there is no doubt that the Earth is entering a prolonged global cooling period and will soon set another record drop in temperatures by the November-December 2012 time frame as was forecast in the SSRC press release from May 10, 2010(http://www.spaceandscience.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/ssrcpressrelease2-2011globalcooling.pdf).
strange stuff happeningwhen the earth cools (e.g. sun obscured) and warms (e.g. sun visible). That sort of “stuff” has been going on since the beginning. The claim that
the temperature globally is on the raise, the CO2 driving itis pure speculation. There is no point in arguing about the drivers because we don’t know enough about them to do that. The best we can do at present is discuss the possibilities and try to identify what they might be and what is the significance of each.
you have the suns variations as a possible driverappears to me to be playing down the significance of those variations because scientists seem to recognise the sun’s variations are not a "possible” but at least as a probable driver. (e.g. see the link in my comment yesterday @ 19:44:18 http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2009-episodes-jastp-71-194.pdf).
The strong correlation between reconstructed temperature and solar activity suggests solar forcing as a main driver for temperature variations during the period 1250–1850 in this region. The precisely dated record allowed for the identification of a 10–30 year lag between solar forcing and temperature response, underlining the importance of indirect sun-climate mechanisms involving ocean-induced changes in atmospheric circulation. Solar contribution to temperature change became less important during industrial period 1850–2000 in the Altai region(http://europa.agu.org/?uri=/journals/gl/gl0901/2008GL035930/2008GL035930.xml&view=article).
The strong rise in temperature in the Altai between 1850 and 2000 can not be explained by solar activity changes, but rather by the increased concentration of the greenhouse gas CO2 in the atmosphere(http://www.psi.ch/media/temperature). It includes an interesting graph that suggests a good correlation between solar modulation (blue) and Altai temperature deviation when corrected for the lag.
you want to use to prove .. That it's all due to the sun? And CO2 becoming some imaginary driver, according to you?is a complete misrepresentation of what I have said anywhere.
the temperature globally is on the raise, the CO2 driving itwith
scientists seem to recognise the sun’s variations are not a "possible” but at least as a probable driverand provided evidence of this.
To understand what causes low interplanetary magnetic fields and what causes coronal holes in general. This is all part of the solar cycle. And all part of what causes effects on Earth(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/solar-minima.html). The other says
But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation .. All three of these lines of research to point to the familiar sunspot cycle shutting down for a while. “If we are right,” Hill concluded, “this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”(http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/4032/drop-in-suns-activity-expected).
I think that most of us recognise the sun as the major driver .. scientists seem to recognise the sun’s variations are not a "possible” but at least as a probable driverand linked to further evidence.
prove .. That it is all due to the sunsimply that the sun is the major driver.
Many sceptics recognise that atmospheric CO2 has a small forcing effect on global temperatures (less than 2C for a doubling if all other drivers were to remain constant). There are plenty scientists looking elsewhere for other drivers having much greater significance that CO2Nothing there attempts to
prove .. CO2 becoming some imaginary driverOn the contrary, it recognises CO2 as being a real driver, albeit far less significant than others, such as H2O.
the sun is a driver too, nobody doubts thathowever
But whether it has driven us to the climate we see today? Noperequires scientific evidence to support it, otherwise it is pure speculation. I am puzzled about what is meant by
Want to link me the stud(y)ies stating your thoughts, so I can read it?because once again it is not clear what is being asked for. I’ll make an assumption that the request for links to studies stating my thoughts is referring to my thoughts about solar impacts on the different global climates (http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/koppen.htm).
stop trying to play out solar scientists against other disciplines. It makes me wonder what you are Yelder?will appear as nonsense to sceptics and others who recognise the significant uncertainties within most of the numerous disciplines involved in trying to improve our poor understanding of the processes and drivers of the global climates. As I pointed out on 13th June @ 09:30:46 biologist Professor Barry Brook of Adelaide University acknowledged back in April 2009,
There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers. ..(http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/).
Pointing at solar variables is all good and proper, but I prefer something more substantial, like a study proving itand asking
Just link me to it, but try to avoid 'pay sites' pleaseis puzzling because I recall providing ten links to relevant pages only yesterday. It appears that no attempt has been made to read and understand them. I repeat
BTW, the very interesting paper “Solar Influences on Climate” by Gray et al. (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/2009RG000282.pdf) covers the subject in great detail
.. Stanford Solar Center .. provides teachers, students, and the interested public with the latest information about the Sun. .. Stanford scientists study the Sun via two space-based instruments, the Solar Dynamics Observatory and the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, as well as a ground-based telescope called the Wilcox Solar Observatory on the Stanford University campus ..(http://solar-center.stanford.edu/).
Understanding the influence of solar variability on the Earth’s climate requires knowledge of solar variability, solar-terrestrial interactions, and the mechanisms determining the response of the Earth’s climate system. We provide a summary of our current understanding in each of these three areas. Observations and mechanisms for the Sun’s variability are described, including solar irradiance variations on both decadal and centennial time scales and their relation to galactic cosmic rays. Corresponding observations of variations of the Earth’s climate on associated time scales are described, including variations in ozone, temperatures, winds, clouds, precipitation, and regional modes of variability such as the monsoons and the North Atlantic Oscillation. A discussion of the available solar and climate proxies is provided. Mechanisms proposed to explain these climate observations are described, including the effects of variations in solar irradiance and of charged particles. Finally, the contributions of solar variations to recent observations of global climate change are discussed.
.. A full understanding of the influence of solar variability on the Earth’s climate requires knowledge of .. the short- and long-term solar variability, .. solar-terrestrial interactions, and .. the mechanisms determining the response of the Earth’s climate system to these interactions .. There have been substantial increases in our knowledge of each of these areas in recent years and renewed interest because of the importance of understanding and characterizing natural variability and its contribution to the observed climate change .. Correct attribution of past changes is key to the prediction of future change.
.. Of greater importance to climate change issues are longer-term drifts in this radiative forcing. .. However, observations indicate, at least regionally, larger solar‐induced climate variations than would be expected from this simple calculation, suggesting that more complicated mechanisms are required to explain them. .. A great number of papers have reported correlations between solar variability and climate parameters. One relatively early association .. examined historical evidence of weather conditions in Europe back to the Middle Ages, including the severity of winters in London and Paris, and suggested that during times of few or no sunspots, e.g., during the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715), the Sun’s radiative output was reduced, leading to a colder climate. Although many of the early reported relationships between solar variability and climate have been questioned on statistical grounds, some correlations have been found to be more robust, and the addition of more years of data has confirmed their ignificance. ..
Mechanisms proposed to explain the climate response to very small solar variations can be grouped broadly into two categories. The first involves a response to variations in solar irradiance. .. The second mechanism category involves energetic particles, including solar energetic particle (SEP) events and GCRs. .. At stratospheric heights .. This region of the atmosphere has the potential to affect the troposphere immediately below it and hence the surface climate. Estimated stratospheric temperature changes associated with the 11 year SC show a signal of 2 K over the equatorial stratopause (50 km) with a secondary maximum in the lower stratosphere (20–25 km ... The direct effect of irradiance variations is amplified by an important feedback mechanism involving ozone production, which is an additional source of heating .. The origins of the lower stratospheric maximum and the observed signal that penetrates deep into the troposphere at midlatitudes are less well understood and require feedback/transfer mechanisms both within the stratosphere and between the stratosphere and underlying troposphere .. While the testing of solar influence on climate via changes in solar irradiance is relatively well advanced, the GCR cloud mechanisms have only just begun to be quantified. ..
In the context of assessing the contribution of solar forcing to climate change, an important question is whether there has been a long-term drift in solar irradiance that might have contributed to the observed surface warming in the latter half of the last century. Reconstructions of past TSI variations have been employed in model studies and allow us to examine how the climate might respond to such imposed forcings. The direct effects of 11 year SC irradiance variations are relatively small at the surface and are damped by the long response time of the ocean-atmosphere system. However, model estimates of the response to centennial time scale irradiance variations are larger since the accumulated effect of small signals over long time periods would not be damped to the same extent as decadal-scale responses. .. There are also large uncertainties in estimates of long‐term irradiance changes ..
the low level of scientific understanding of the solar influence is noted [IPCC, 2007]. The uncertainty is probably also underestimated because of the poorly resolved stratosphere in most of these models. Nevertheless, IPCC [2007] concludes that changes in the Sun have played a role in the observed warming of the Earth since 1750, but these changes are very small compared to the role played by increasing long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. .. The purpose of this review is to present up-to-date information on our knowledge of solar variability and its impact on climate and climate change, as an update to previous reviews ..
Further observations and research are required to improve our understanding of solar forcing mechanisms and their impacts on the Earth’s climate.
Education: .. Trinity College Dublin, in Ireland, obtaining a M.A. in natural science after graduating with first-class honors. Her final year thesis on electro-encephalography (EEG) recordings of the human brain was presented at the Eastern Psychology Association Conference in 1977(http://www.kmcauliffe.com/bio/) – hhmm!!
Education: B.A. from George Washington University in English Literature (although she started out in Political Science). Her M.A. came from the University of Virginia(http://papedia.wikispaces.com/Eileen+Claussen) - another hhmm!
Maybe it is time to take a close look at the level of scientific expertise... ...demonstrated by authors of the articles linked to by a resident disciple of the CACC doctrine.
As far as I can ascertain neither “computer geek” John nor novelist (http://gpwayne.wordpress.com/about/) Graham are unbiased sources of information.
QuoteEducation: B.A. from George Washington University in English Literature (although she started out in Political Science). Her M.A. came from the University of Virginia- another hhmm!