General Climate Change

[Solar Cycles]

Well, when cooling is local that's what it is, likewise when, on average, the globe is warming. I wont pretend that isn't the reality nor would I if the opposite was the case.

So, all the temperature record showing record or near record warmth atm are wrong?

Not at all, but taking individual months over a 30 year time scale shows what exactly? Also a lot of those recordings are taken in the midst of a el nino, so are expected to above average!

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think what Capt-Bob is trying to say, looking over the posts, is that the LI shows that it is possible that something other than AGW might be behind much of the warming, and therefore it is OTT to dismiss alternative possibilities and say "there's no way the Sun could be the primary driver of global warming". But there has been nothing done yet to revise that "possible" into a "probable" and I think the proponents of the LI are actually quite happy to accept that for now.

AGW is the prevailing theory simply because it has more in the way of compelling evidence behind it than the others, and the theory with the most compelling evidence is, on average, the most likely to be nearest to the truth. But if we can accumulate similarly compelling evidence for alternative theories then the equation will change significantly as a result.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

AGW is the prevailing theory simply because it has more in the way of compelling evidence behind it than the others, and the theory with the most compelling evidence is, on average, the most likely to be nearest to the truth. But if we can accumulate similarly compelling evidence for alternative theories then the equation will change significantly as a result.

Maybe compelling is too strong a word TWS, the only compelling evidence is that the Earth has warmed.

BFTP

[Yorkshiresnows]

Maybe compelling is too strong a word TWS, the only compelling evidence is that the Earth has warmed.

BFTP

Hi Blast,

Agree. The science is not compelling, not at all when you look at it in detail. There is more and more literature available that questions, not whether the world has experimenced warming (particularly 1980 to 2000), but that natural cycles can explain almost all of it.

It seems nothing but common sense to me, that the sun has a major impact and it looks as though we will all see in the next few years how much of an effect as we slowly ease into a Dalton or even Maunder type minima.

Y.S

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I would add a 'third' to that

We are a long way from any compelling evidence.

Regarding the solar cycle issue then we are all going to have to wait a few more years yet before we see the real possible effects. Unfortunately till then the 'oh no it isn't' 'oh yes it is' type debate will continue.

[Thundery wintry showers]

We have a lot of compelling evidence for AGW, the simple physics of how the atmosphere responds to increases in GHGs, the logarithmic equation with CO2, and various scientific and mathematic models and experiements exist testing how much the climate may respond to increases in GHGs. Some of the sources of uncertainty are poorly understood, so the extent to which increased GHGs leads to increased temperature is open to question, but the notion that increased GHGs causes increased temperatures is very strongly supported.

[Yorkshiresnows]

We have a lot of compelling evidence for AGW, the simple physics of how the atmosphere responds to increases in GHGs, the logarithmic equation with CO2, and various scientific and mathematic models and experiements exist testing how much the climate may respond to increases in GHGs. Some of the sources of uncertainty are poorly understood, so the extent to which increased GHGs leads to increased temperature is open to question, but the notion that increased GHGs causes increased temperatures is very strongly supported.

You raise a valid point in that there is a lot of literature in support of Co2 and Greenhouse gases as the main driver of recent Global warming, but all of this is dependant on Co2 inducing potent and amplifying feedback mechanisms to raise the global temperature, most based on the impacts on water vapour.

In this, (the feedback mechanisms), there is a great deal of argument and certainly less consensus.

........ and I guess that here's the crux ..... if we accept that in recent years there is growing evidence of a solar effect, and if we also accept there has been a high solar output over the 20th century ....... which was never part of the computer modalling of climate, ....... how can the Co2 model still be without question?

There's a lot to take in and question from both sides of the AGW argument.

Y.S

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

You raise a valid point in that there is a lot of literature in support of Co2 and Greenhouse gases as the main driver of recent Global warming, but all of this is dependant on Co2 inducing potent and amplifying feedback mechanisms to raise the global temperature, most based on the impacts on water vapour.

In this, (the feedback mechanisms), there is a great deal of argument and certainly less consensus.

........ and I guess that here's the crux ..... if we accept that in recent years there is growing evidence of a solar effect, and if we also accept there has been a high solar output over the 20th century ....... which was never part of the computer modalling of climate, ....... how can the Co2 model still be without question?

There's a lot to take in and question from both sides of the AGW argument.

Y.S

Good post YS. Almost identical to what I have been saying on here for a long time now

[Thundery wintry showers]

Although I think we have some handle on the extent of the feedbacks, I do see those as the biggest source of uncertainty, and potentially, a bigger source than is currently thought by the scientific mainstream. The currently-assumed uncertainty bounds are only as reliable as the results of the climate models and mathematical formulae/laws that are being used to derive them, and I think we still have some way to go before they can be completely trusted.

One important point to remember though is that while it means we could be overestimating the contribution from AGW, it also raises the possibility that we could be underestimating it, with potentially catastrophic implications.

The point about high solar activity over the 20th century is interesting, because I think the mainstream consensus is that the rise in solar activity earlier in the century explains some of the warming back then, but there has been no further rise late in the century and so solar forcing cannot explain the warming of the last 30-40 years. There was also some contentious discussion over the Maunder Minimum and how the sun probably caused approximately 0.3C of global cooling with an absolute upper uncertainty bound of 0.5-0.6C. However, this is where I await the results of the Leaky Integrator as it is the only heavily-substantiated line of scientific reasoning/testing that I've come across that could offer a serious challenge to this view if it produces strong results.

[Gray-Wolf]

Though I'll be told we need to 'wait' for even longer the facts are we're loosing our air-con unit (up north) and this will have a far greater impact on warming than solar variability.

And of course, come Sept, I'll come back and repeat this fact but I tend to think I'll not need to.

[joggs]

Though I'll be told we need to 'wait' for even longer the facts are we're loosing our air-con unit (up north) and this will have a far greater impact on warming than solar variability.

And of course, come Sept, I'll come back and repeat this fact but I tend to think I'll not need to.

Evening GW and all! Im new on hrer but have been reading this subject/thread on and off for 3 or so years! I tend to hop around on different threads but do find this subject very interesting. Im a novice so if my questions/suggestions seem so 1990s pls be understanding! Myself i tend to think that the sun is the main player from what ive read/learnt but thats not to say that manmade warming is not present. RE ice retension/expansion, i know it seems coy to say so but i dont think records go back long enough to be pro/con, and i feel its time we do need to get closer to understanding the prblems/solutions!

[Yorkshiresnows]

Though I'll be told we need to 'wait' for even longer the facts are we're loosing our air-con unit (up north) and this will have a far greater impact on warming than solar variability.

And of course, come Sept, I'll come back and repeat this fact but I tend to think I'll not need to.

The thing is GW, the arctic has been (most probably) ice free in the summer on several occasions before now.

The Vikings colonised Greenland (and not just the Southern tip, they were there and trading for over 100 years !) and there is controversial evidence to suspect that the Chinese navigated the Northwest passage many hundreds of years ago.

We know that we have had various cycles of warm and cold climate that seems to have affected the Northern Hemisphere more so than the Southern ... most probably because of the polar region being water based and the Southern Land based.

The little Ice age started post a stable and warm medieval period itself between a colder phase and a more stable warm Roman period. It is my view that solar activity has a much larger impact on the climate that we so far understand all relating and mixed in with Ocean cycles.

We know the 20TH century saw solar activity rocket as compared to the very quite 19th century ..... and that this now turning around again. I know that this is just one side of an argument, but there are data to suggest that one of the mechanisms of an active sun, is to affect cloud formation (via an electromagnetic component) and the amount of solar irradiation absorbed by the surface of the Earth. This is really going to be most felt in the Oceans, that will take in that heat building up a warm pool of water. This will be distributed by the ocean currents to the Northern and Southern permament heat loss sinks and distributed across the land via wind currents.

We know we have ENSO, NAO and PDO cycles, that when in phase can readily amplify or when out of phase modulate the temperature signal.

During the course of roughly 58 years of observation since 1950, the PDO in its negative (cold) phase coincided withthe 1945-78 global cool period, and in its positive the 1978-2006 phase coincided with the period of global warming. At the end of the last PDO cycle the large Pacific gyre off Alsaka lost its heat and the cyclel turned negative, coinciding with the recent fall .... or levelling off in surface temperatures.

From what I have read, there are a number of factors that can account for the Majority of the late 20th century warming - solar being a major constituent. We have a current levelling off / drop in global temperatures (since 1998), a recent shift inthe Jet stream South (not what we have been forecast !!) and loss of heat store in the oceans, all coinciding with a 30% drop in solar magnetic energy from a peak in 1990 to the peak in 2000 and a lengthened interlude of low megnetic energy from 2006 to 2010.

There is at least a body of evidence to suggest that the major part of the 1980-2000 warming was caused by cloud thinning and increased flux of visible light to the ocean and land surface; the cloud patterns showing evidence of phase changes associated with ocean oscillations as well as the peaks and troughs of the solar cycle.

Does all of this explain the recent observations of Global warming ...... I am not 100% certain, not at all ....... however, they certainly to my mind make me question the computer Co2 model, and the longer the predicted temperature patterns deviate from that observed (see Met-office site for graph), then the more I am coming to question the 'consensus' theory.

Lets see what happens .... La Nina for late summer / Autumn ?

Y.S

With

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi joggs!

Welcome. I do not think anyone can say that without the Sun at the centre of things we'd be a bit stuck!

As it is we evolved, and captured our atmosphere, so our planet can 'moderate' the full impact of our star.

This process of 'moderation' seems (to me) to be what we are all at ends with. Without CO2 it'd be cold. Without our 'carbon cycle' we'd also be in a poor place.

Our disruption of the carbon cycle, by freeing carbon that the planet had hidden from the carbon cycle for millions of years, is only a part of the impact mankind has had on his planet.

We can look at land use, or our 'extinction' of the planets animals, pollution from acid rain, ozone hole, plastic junk islands in the middle of oceans, noise pollution of both oceans and land (been very 'different around here without the constant drone of aircraft approaching or receding), deforestation, desertification. This list is far longer but let's not labour the point.

Our interruption of the carbon cycle is , to me, the biggest worry. We can't put this Genii back in the bottle the way we can with other of our impacts. This impact may well be already causing changes within the carbon cycle that will lead to a 'natural warming cycle' as we have seen many times before in our recent geological past but this time we (via our push on temps by ,of all things ,carbon) have instigated it and not our position in the solar system.

Folk fret on about whether CO2 is warming the planet. Maybe more should be worrying as to whether a warming planet forces the carbon cycle to increase it's GHG production and drive more warming.

I'm sure we'd all agree that an atmosphere richer in CO2 (and the other GHG's) will mean a warmer world.....even if the planet was at its furthest away from the sun with it's axis pointing us in the worst posible position to accept our sun's output.

With more GHG's a lessening of solar output would mean less in terms of temperature loss than with lower CO2 levels, any increase would lead to an even warmer world with more Carbon cycle additions.

I'm pretty worried about this years polar melt. I think it'll tell us a lot about 'where we are' in terms of our warming. We'll have data from our equipment but we'll also have the ice loss of summer to show us how much 'old' ice we now have left after 3 years of record losses of it and then Dr B's discovery that a portion of that left was already collapsed and 'rotten'. It's the loss of this 'collapsed' ice across the areas that we need to keep perennial (to keep the ice in the Arctic and endure a summers heat) that will show us ,once and for all, where we are regarding ice loss.

Hi Y.S.,

it's funny , I'm starting to hear (more and more) not just that ice loss is cyclical (over short periods in geological terms) but also that it's been ice free whilst our human race existed.

I have never come across anything other than the opposite from the science I have encountered and would dearly like to see a paper that is so radically different in it's evidence from all the others.

It's like the viewpoints ,,over the past 25yrs have moved on from "It isn't happening/No such thing", to " do you really think we could impact such a huge planet/ nature will heal herself" to "Man may be having impacts but there are bigger drivers than man's impacts at play here/ Didn't they say we were going to have an ice age in the 70's" to " We cannot say for sure how bad man's impacts can be because we can't measure man's impacts without knowing all other inputs into the system/ Natural drivers are responsible for the warming in the late 20th century, you watch it cool for the next ....yrs, now we're into the cold phase/ it's all happened before/ poles been ice free at regular intervals in our past/subs were surfacing there in the 50's/the Chinese sailed around the pole in the 1300's/it's all the Sun"

The fact the counterpoint seems to be moving towards accepting the worse case scenario and making it "just one of them things that periodically happens....always has ,always will" seems very much like a rearguard action by folk who fear that they may well have to face the realities of AGW's impacts.....but call them something natural.

We will all see how devastating an ice free pole proves to be and how wide ranging it's impacts will be. Those impacts will be recorded in the growth of vegetation ,in the muds laid down in lakes/oceans, within air bubbles in snow falling at the South pole/Top of Greenland (as it has for the few times, in the past 55 million years, that the north pole was ice free).

Future generations WILL have both a natural record of conditions and what you see with a GHG warmed world and an ice free pole, and have documentary evidence of the impacts and conditions.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Solar Cycles]

The thing is GW, the arctic has been (most probably) ice free in the summer on several occasions before now.

The Vikings colonised Greenland (and not just the Southern tip, they were there and trading for over 100 years !) and there is controversial evidence to suspect that the Chinese navigated the Northwest passage many hundreds of years ago.

We know that we have had various cycles of warm and cold climate that seems to have affected the Northern Hemisphere more so than the Southern ... most probably because of the polar region being water based and the Southern Land based.

The little Ice age started post a stable and warm medieval period itself between a colder phase and a more stable warm Roman period. It is my view that solar activity has a much larger impact on the climate that we so far understand all relating and mixed in with Ocean cycles.

We know the 20TH century saw solar activity rocket as compared to the very quite 19th century ..... and that this now turning around again. I know that this is just one side of an argument, but there are data to suggest that one of the mechanisms of an active sun, is to affect cloud formation (via an electromagnetic component) and the amount of solar irradiation absorbed by the surface of the Earth. This is really going to be most felt in the Oceans, that will take in that heat building up a warm pool of water. This will be distributed by the ocean currents to the Northern and Southern permament heat loss sinks and distributed across the land via wind currents.

We know we have ENSO, NAO and PDO cycles, that when in phase can readily amplify or when out of phase modulate the temperature signal.

During the course of roughly 58 years of observation since 1950, the PDO in its negative (cold) phase coincided withthe 1945-78 global cool period, and in its positive the 1978-2006 phase coincided with the period of global warming. At the end of the last PDO cycle the large Pacific gyre off Alsaka lost its heat and the cyclel turned negative, coinciding with the recent fall .... or levelling off in surface temperatures.

From what I have read, there are a number of factors that can account for the Majority of the late 20th century warming - solar being a major constituent. We have a current levelling off / drop in global temperatures (since 1998), a recent shift inthe Jet stream South (not what we have been forecast !!) and loss of heat store in the oceans, all coinciding with a 30% drop in solar magnetic energy from a peak in 1990 to the peak in 2000 and a lengthened interlude of low megnetic energy from 2006 to 2010.

There is at least a body of evidence to suggest that the major part of the 1980-2000 warming was caused by cloud thinning and increased flux of visible light to the ocean and land surface; the cloud patterns showing evidence of phase changes associated with ocean oscillations as well as the peaks and troughs of the solar cycle.

Does all of this explain the recent observations of Global warming ...... I am not 100% certain, not at all ....... however, they certainly to my mind make me question the computer Co2 model, and the longer the predicted temperature patterns deviate from that observed (see Met-office site for graph), then the more I am coming to question the 'consensus' theory.

Lets see what happens .... La Nina for late summer / Autumn ?

Y.S

With

Good post YS, and I think a lot of warmers would do well to take on board what your saying ( GW above certainly hasn't ), I also agree with you on the certainty of what is the casuse, I've stated before that climate science is in it's infancy, and to take a we know best attitude, when there are so many feedbacks we just don't fully understand, is a tad premature. There is a strong body of evidence to suggest we have underestimated the effects of solar, lunar, and ocean cycles. It's only in the last week that climate scientist have acknowledge that solar activity has been underestimated. I think we will see more of the same in years too come. As for AGW, again we just don't know what the true effects of this will be. Should make for an interesting few years to come though!

[Gray-Wolf]

Good post YS, and I think a lot of warmers would do well to take on board what your saying ( GW above certainly hasn't ), I also agree with you on the certainty of what is the cause, I've stated before that climate science is in it's infancy, and to take a we know best attitude, when there are so many feedbacks we just don't fully understand, is a tad premature. There is a strong body of evidence to suggest we have underestimated the effects of solar, lunar, and ocean cycles. It's only in the last week that climate scientist have acknowledge that solar activity has been underestimated. I think we will see more of the same in years too come. As for AGW, again we just don't know what the true effects of this will be. Should make for an interesting few years to come though!

C'mon S.C. the report on 'blocking' just looks at pressure system distribution not planetary heat balance. As with the past winter we get settled (cold) conditions instead of our run of depressions but somewhere else gets the 'other' that we should have had. As it is it appears the 'other' is the Arctic and Canada neither of which are best positioned to receive any more 'extra' warmth (as the melt season will show).

We are already into the 'warming' and we continue to increase our levels of pollution so I'd say we have no parallels to judge impacts by as we are impacting a 'new' global climate system (even though in it's infancy).

The key will be the Arctic's responses and these do not look like 'mitigating' the change as it used to in the 'old world'. In fact things appear to be 'opposite' with more dark waters over summer, more oceanic mixing, less perennial (and more fragile 1st year) and more methane releases.

As you know I feel the 'tipping point' for the Arctic has been breached and it will now find another 'balance point'. This will , in turn, trickle down through the rest of the climate system impacting the globe (you can't turn off the air con and replace it with a heater over summer and expect no change!!!).

EDIT:

It would appear Antarctica (esp east) is also not as 'stable a feature as we once thought with up to 74 advance/retreats over the past 6 million years (under 'natural forcing'!)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=antarctica-andrill-ice-sheets

so how will it cope with the man made warming as the ozone hole repairs itself and the heat floods in?

Edited April 20, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Good post YS, and I think a lot of warmers would do well to take on board what your saying ( GW above certainly hasn't ), I also agree with you on the certainty of what is the casuse, I've stated before that climate science is in it's infancy, and to take a we know best attitude, when there are so many feedbacks we just don't fully understand, is a tad premature. There is a strong body of evidence to suggest we have underestimated the effects of solar, lunar, and ocean cycles. It's only in the last week that climate scientist have acknowledge that solar activity has been underestimated. I think we will see more of the same in years too come. As for AGW, again we just don't know what the true effects of this will be. Should make for an interesting few years to come though!

There is far too much obsession with the last thirty years - as if somehow it is the most significant and definitive clock turning period of micro climate history on earth there has ever been. So many assumptions and premature predictions are being based on a modern theory with people and science almost as neurotically over obsessed and cocooned with it as with the birth and continuance of East Enders since the days of Dirty Den and Angie also back from the eighties.

Lets deal with the important needs of sustainability of resources and energy and practice environmental policies for their own good without bolting it all onto an over hyped theory that isn't as compellingly clear as it is made out to be. It will be a long time unfortunately before solar activity is accepted as part of the mainstream science as it should be. This is where mistakes are being made and will, unfortuantely, continue to be made. As long as this continues to be played down then problems will remain and predictions of climate variation will continue to be skewed and open to considerable doubt and suspicion.

Edited April 20, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Thundery wintry showers]

I did read in a few scientific papers that there may be a link between the NAO/PDO and global temperatures, and that this could have contributed to the elevated warming of 1975-2000, and that a switch could lead to little or no rise in global temperatures over the coming 20 years or so. (So, for those of you who think these factors aren't being taken into account among the scientific mainstream, they are- though whether they make it into the IPCC Reports is another matter!).

It doesn't disprove AGW but it does add another line of evidence (alongside ENSO which is similar) to suggest that the warming of 1975-2000 may not have been due to AGW alone, and also to suggest that the lack of warming in the last decade may be a case of AGW being offset by natural variability.

"The jury is still out" on solar contribution over the period but as yet the various studies on it have placed solar activity as being very unlikely to explain most of the warming, though it may explain some of it.

[Gray-Wolf]

I think only a fool would claim anything (yet) is AGW alone TWS! AGW is a 'growing problem' and not a fully fledged 'instant' issue. It's impacts will be first felt (and most severe) across the Arctic. The impacts elsewhere will be intertwined with (for now) larger global influences (like a strong El-Nino) and 'add' or 'detract' from those influences.

As the problem grows so does it's potential to influence ,and overturn, the other 'natural' movers and shakers in the climate system.

With the polar ice gone and the ocean there thoroughly mixed new forces will come to bare across all of the established northern hemisphere circulatory patterns (and ,in time, through the southern hemisphere if AGW is still being beaten off the Antarctic by our Ozone impacts).

Can anyone tell me what impacts free evaporation/convection across what was an 'ice desert' will do in terms of northern hemisphere climate? Fully fledged Arctic storms lashing the crumbling permafrost coasts of Siberia/Alaska? What of all the Moisture newly available? What of ocean currents?

It is wrong to look for 'AGW' as a stand alone thing, far wiser to look for novel departures from the 'norm' that would occur with a little 'nudge' from AGW.........

We here a lot over on the LI thread of Hysteresis. This is how the planet used to keep things in check. Push for too long (with increasing pressure) and surely you overcome this reluctance towards change and a break point is reached.

We all know what happens then and it ain't slow or orderly!

The Arctic is the first place to show this 'break point' occuring. When we see it occuring further south THEN is the time to look for AGW influence alone.

[Yorkshiresnows]

I did read in a few scientific papers that there may be a link between the NAO/PDO and global temperatures, and that this could have contributed to the elevated warming of 1975-2000, and that a switch could lead to little or no rise in global temperatures over the coming 20 years or so. (So, for those of you who think these factors aren't being taken into account among the scientific mainstream, they are- though whether they make it into the IPCC Reports is another matter!).

It doesn't disprove AGW but it does add another line of evidence (alongside ENSO which is similar) to suggest that the warming of 1975-2000 may not have been due to AGW alone, and also to suggest that the lack of warming in the last decade may be a case of AGW being offset by natural variability.

"The jury is still out" on solar contribution over the period but as yet the various studies on it have placed solar activity as being very unlikely to explain most of the warming, though it may explain some of it.

Hi TWS,

Yes, I would agree with you that the jury is still out ..... now that is quite a statement considering that the science of GW is supposed to be 'settled', I must admit, this time last year I was far less convinced than I am today of the role of solar and ocean cycles on climate.

The data I have seen and referenced on this thread in earlier posts allows the possibility that almost all of the late 20th century warming could be attributed to changes in cloud / vapour cover. This is a controversial subject, particularly so given the only recent accurate modalling via satellite measurements (which have also proved somewhat problematic), but nevertheless allows one to question the main driver of change.

Yes, I have no doubpt that scientists are discussing the PDO etc ocean cycles, but to 2007 they were not part of the computer modal simulations of climate forcing that went into the IPCC reports .......... again a question against the CO2 modal.

You then also have the life work of Dr. Theodor Landscheidt (deceased since 1994), whose inflammatory paper, entiltled 'New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming' was so readily dismissed by so many. However, far from being a 'Crank' this guy was a well respected solar scientist, with a proven mathematical theory linking the changes in the rotary force driving the suns oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system with peaks and troughs in 'activity' and relationship to climate on Earth.

This was readily dismissed when initally published (we were in the middle of straight-line temperature increases) ...!!!

But, .... he accurately forecast the last several El-Nino events, their strengths and impacts .... something that NASA could not. He also stated that solar cycle 23 would be weak and down on previous cycles (he made this forecast 2 decades ago !!) so perhaps there is something in his mathematical theory and again we come back to solar activity. He also predicts that we will enter a Maunder or Dalton type minimum by 2030, with cooling of the climate, something that many other solar scientists are beginning to at least discuss.

For me, the real test of these theories comes over the next few years.

Oh and GW, you might like to check out the book entitled 'The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850' by Brian M. Fagan. There is a lot of space given over to the known records of the Viking settlements on Greenland, the crops they cultivated and how the climate changed so that they had to abandon the area. The point being that this period coincided with the end of the medievil warm period, where temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than today with less Ice levels (despite less Co2 being present).

Its all very interesting.

Y.S

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Dr Landsheidt passing away is a major loss to scientific research. His continued presence would have been a great assist to overall climate research in these days - especially as his own predictions have been more accurate than the IPCC. And NASA too, as rightly stated.

His predictions can't be tested or judged for some years to come yet. A lot of AGW proponents will emphasise how the true test of man made forcing can only be measured by the time that the projections are made over. Yet the same principle cannot be extended towards solar forcing and in turn a lot of these people are making sweeping judgements about solar lag, in terms of the downturn in solar activity not having any effect yet, that are not substantiated and are based on little understanding - and further especially clouded in terms of judgements based on AGW suppositions.

[Gray-Wolf]

If you take a peak over at the 'what's causing the warming thread' you'll see that V.P. has kindly posted up a few graphs of temp over time plotted against various drivers. You will note the difference between the one PDO+ve that lines up with temp and that ,earlier in the century, 2 =ve phases that run full contrary to the temp plot. How can that be if PDO is such a major influence on N. Hemisphere weather? Could folk be using a convenient 'line of sight' to support a notion and not the data?

The paper linking the fall of the meso-American civilisations (Nino blighted and Spaniard ridden) and the rapid re-forestation of the area and associated CO2 uptake as the driver for the LIA seems compelling (to me). If CO2 can ,over such a short space of time, help drop global temps to such a degree then what of the humongous amounts we have added this past 150yrs?

We all know that checks and balances must be overcome before 'change' occurs but the post 80's period seems more likely to be a response of that nature to the subtle influences of a couple of know drivers.

From the same thread you can see just how devastating the current ice loss is and that, after a gradual decrease, it too hit a 'tipping point around that time.

Could it possibly be that a combination of global dimming and hysterisis held back the true scope of the changes for a good long while and we are now starting to see the first 'climate dominoes' fall indirect response to GHG forcings?

Sadly sitting around to see the outcome will be our fate......of course such a delay will be measured in species extinctions, rapid climate shift and unfortunate impacts on the 'not so stable' EAIS..... and, of course, millions of humans dead.

There is no satisfaction in doing such but what options are we being given.

I maintain that mid Sept. will be plenty enough proof that we have done something terrible to our world for most folk who have an interest.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I just think that you are manufacturing 'a disaster scenario to fit' GW

This September is not the final D-Day for 'our world'. It is only D-Day in terms of the apocalyptic themes that exist within the mind inside your own head.

Edited April 20, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Devonian]

Hi TWS,

The data I have seen and referenced on this thread in earlier posts allows the possibility that almost all of the late 20th century warming could be attributed to changes in cloud / vapour cover. This is a controversial subject, particularly so given the only recent accurate modalling via satellite measurements (which have also proved somewhat problematic), but nevertheless allows one to question the main driver of change.

Which means it's just coincidence that temperatures have risen just at the time the concentration of a significant ghg (CO2) have? Or, infact that CO2 isn't the ghg we, science, understand it to be? Some claim that, someone should go write it up

Yes, I have no doubpt that scientists are discussing the PDO etc ocean cycles, but to 2007 they were not part of the computer modal simulations of climate forcing that went into the IPCC reports .......... again a question against the CO2 modal.

You then also have the life work of Dr. Theodor Landscheidt (deceased since 1994), whose inflammatory paper, entiltled 'New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming' was so readily dismissed by so many. However, far from being a 'Crank' this guy was a well respected solar scientist, with a proven mathematical theory linking the changes in the rotary force driving the suns oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system with peaks and troughs in 'activity' and relationship to climate on Earth.

How big are the changes, I seem to remember we're talking mm's of movement to orbits million of Km big? I must say to argue that the planets (mostly Jupiter a mere ~780million Km from the Sun and (is it?) ~.001% of it's mass) and how they intereact with the simply vastly bigger Sun, have more effect on our climate than a rapid increase in CO2 (and other anthro effect) here on Earth is something I find very hard to accept indeed!

This was readily dismissed when initally published (we were in the middle of straight-line temperature increases) ...!!!

But, .... he accurately forecast the last several El-Nino events, their strengths and impacts .... something that NASA could not. He also stated that solar cycle 23 would be weak and down on previous cycles (he made this forecast 2 decades ago !!) so perhaps there is something in his mathematical theory and again we come back to solar activity. He also predicts that we will enter a Maunder or Dalton type minimum by 2030, with cooling of the climate, something that many other solar scientists are beginning to at least discuss.

Did he accurately forecast these things? How accurately? How much wiggle room?

Edited April 20, 2010 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.agu.org/p...9GL037274.shtml

Maybe low SSN's has a helping hand in bringing us our snow but it seems our impacts across the pole did the rest......and will continue to, sun spots or not.....

Edited April 20, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Solar Cycles]

Which means it's just coincidence that temperatures have risen just at the time the concentration of a significant ghg (CO2) have? Or, infact that CO2 isn't the ghg we, science, understand it to be? Some claim that, someone should go write it up

How big are the changes, I seem to remember we're talking mm's of movement to orbits million of Km big? I must say to argue that the planets (mostly Jupiter a mere ~780million Km from the Sun and (is it?) ~.001% of it's mass) and how they intereact with the simply vastly bigger Sun, have more effect on our climate than a rapid increase in CO2 (and other anthro effect) here on Earth is something I find very hard to accept indeed!

Did he accurately forecast these things? How accurately? How much wiggle room?

It strikes me that you'll dismiss anything other than CO2 being responsible , why don't you apply your probing questions at climate scientist. After all your willing to dismiss any scientific work, that may show AGW not to be the big bad wolf it's made out to be. I'm not saying it isn't Dev, but you, GW. and a few others will swallow any cock and bull story, if that story suits your ideologies! I thought science was all about keeping an open mind, sadly this is no longer the case. HOW SAD!!