little ice age ahead

[BornFromTheVoid]

Because those natural cycles only kicked in over the last six or seven years and yet we've seen a pause in global temps for going on 17 years. Somethings wrong with the the theory on AGW and more than likely it's down to climate sensitivity  and how climate models underestimate these.

 

I was referring to the longer term.

We had Milankovitch driven cooling from 8,000 years ago until shortly after the industrial revolution, just as would be expected as we head into the next glacial period. Then it all reversed in an incredibly dramatic fashion.

 

[UV-RAY]

I was referring to the longer term.

We had Milankovitch driven cooling from 8,000 years ago until shortly after the industrial revolution, just as would be expected as we head into the next glacial period. Then it all reversed in an incredibly dramatic fashion.

 

According to climate scientist it's 2000 years ago, we had this conversation a while back BFTV.

 

Edit; I think I said it was 2000 years ago?

[reef]

Moved to the correct section..

[Nights King]

I thought I was reading discussion on "little ice age ahead" when I checked this thread not another thread for and against global warming?

 

[UV-RAY]

According to climate scientist it's 2000 years ago, we had this conversation a while back BFTV.

 

Edit; I think I said it was 2000 years ago?

Sorry BFTV, I've misread your post ignore the previous comment.

I thought I was reading discussion on "little ice age ahead" when I checked this thread not another thread for and against global warming?

 

Lol, it was inevitable though.

[UV-RAY]

I was referring to the longer term.

We had Milankovitch driven cooling from 8,000 years ago until shortly after the industrial revolution, just as would be expected as we head into the next glacial period. Then it all reversed in an incredibly dramatic fashion.

 

Yes it ties in nicely with solar output ramping up I would say with the last 100 years giving us very high solar output and thus effecting the Hadley pressure cell and sending the jet further and further North.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Yes it ties in nicely with solar output ramping up I would say with the last 100 years giving us very high solar output and thus effecting the Hadley pressure cell and sending the jet further and further North.

 

Only it doesn't. Solar activity has undergone many ups and downs over the last few thousand years, why didn't they impact the climate in the same way as now?

If the warming was down to solar activity, the nights wouldn't be warming faster than the days, the stratosphere wouldn't be cooling and we wouldn't be seeing less energy leaving the planet at the CO2 absorption wavebands,

[VillagePlank]

Well, the Vostok ice core data seems to show that the Earth has a maximum temperature. Whether the recent warming is human induced, natural, or whatever, it seems that once we get to a given temperature high, the temperature subsequently, and very speedily, falls of a cliff into a new ice age,

 

 

[SomeLikeItHot]

Any yet these wild fires have occurred many times during the same period of time going of past records.

 

Fire certainly, they are part of life in Australia. They can of course be even worse but how often have they occurring in October? I would be interested if you could show anything approaching the size of those fires in October before because as far as I know, and certainly that was what the NSW fire service said it was unprecedented in timing - not in size. Usually bad fires don't start for 2 months.

 

But all this is a secondary issue. Australia (ie an entire continent) had record heat over the past year. I'm pretty sure that doesn't occur during a global ice age.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Well, the Vostok ice core data seems to show that the Earth has a maximum temperature. Whether the recent warming is human induced, natural, or whatever, it seems that once we get to a given temperature high, the temperature subsequently, and very speedily, falls of a cliff into a new ice age,

 

Regulated by the Milankovitch cycles? The warm ups are rapid, the cool downs are more gradual it seems?

[feb1991blizzard]

Opinions on taxation doesn't change the reality of the science.

But if you're going to go down the road of costs, what about the billions in subsidies given by the UK to fossil fuels companies? The cost of foreign wars to protect energy supplies? The health costs from pollution due to fossil fuels? I think they add up to considerably more than the green tax.

 

Its almost like some of you lefties wont be happy until we are on horses and carriages again though, agreed, political situations don change the reality of science, but also you would have a far worse standard of living if fossil fuels didn't exist, as for the argument about the war in Iraq being all about oil, you sure we couldn't have cut a deal with Saddam Hussein if we had wanted?, something like, keep your chemical weapons, in fact will give you more as long as you give us your oil.

[UV-RAY]

Only it doesn't. Solar activity has undergone many ups and downs over the last few thousand years, why didn't they impact the climate in the same way as now?

If the warming was down to solar activity, the nights wouldn't be warming faster than the days, the stratosphere wouldn't be cooling and we wouldn't be seeing less energy leaving the planet at the CO2 absorption wavebands,

Bu it has BFTV, solar out has been consistently high for over a 100 years, which determines the Hadley Pressure cell and it's location, hence why we've seen the jet way North for long periods of the 20th century and now we are see in a gradual Southward movement of this, all down to UV output and not rising CO2 levels and pausing global temps.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[VillagePlank]

Could be Milankovitch cycles, I suppose, BFTV. I have been trying to write an orrery for quite some time: never quite got around to it. Note to self - must try harder!

Edited November 9, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Gael_Force]

Its almost like some of you lefties wont be happy until we are on horses and carriages again though, agreed, political situations don change the reality of science, but also you would have a far worse standard of living if fossil fuels didn't exist, as for the argument about the war in Iraq being all about oil, you sure we couldn't have cut a deal with Saddam Hussein if we had wanted?, something like, keep your chemical weapons, in fact will give you more as long as you give us your oil.

 

I think the fodder for all the horses might be a bit scarce and expensive when the next grand minimum (NB. not Global ice age) kicks in.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Gael_Force

[Methuselah]

Bu it has BFTV, solar out has been consistently high for over a 100 years, which determines the Hadley Pressure cell and it's location, hence why we've seen the jet way North for long periods of the 20th century and now we are see in a gradual Southward movement of this, all down to UV output and not rising CO2 levels and pausing global temps.

 

Maybe yes, maybe no? But, on the balance of probabilities, however, extremely unlikely IMO...

[knocker]

Anthropogenic radiative forcing timeseries from pre-industrial times until 2010

 

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/11/22545/2011/acpd-11-22545-2011.pdf

Edited November 9, 2013 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

Its almost like some of you lefties wont be happy until we are on horses and carriages again though, agreed, political situations don change the reality of science, but also you would have a far worse standard of living if fossil fuels didn't exist, as for the argument about the war in Iraq being all about oil, you sure we couldn't have cut a deal with Saddam Hussein if we had wanted?, something like, keep your chemical weapons, in fact will give you more as long as you give us your oil.

 

No need to make it personal Feb91. Pointing out their wider costs and problems doesn't mean I want to return to the stone age.

Fossil fuels have had there place and will continue to have their place. It doesn't change their negative impacts, and the costs beyond what you pay at the pump.

It also doesn't change climate science, however much people want to make it a political/ideological issue.

 

 

Bu it has BFTV, solar out has been consistently high for over a 100 years, which determines the Hadley Pressure cell and it's location, hence why we've seen the jet way North for long periods of the 20th century and now we are see in a gradual Southward movement of this, all down to UV output and not rising CO2 levels and pausing global temps.

 

The role of variations in solar activity on our atmospheric circulation is very poorly understood, as someone with a self accredited sceptical mind, I'm sure you'd agree. So the certainty you're ascribing to the effects of solar activity simply aren't backed up by the research or evidence. Try applying your scepticism to more than just CO2!

 

The pattern of warming one would expect from increased solar activity isn't there, so it cannot be the leading cause anyway. It's like using petrol to set you house on fire for the insurance money, then claiming it was caused by a lightening strike from a storm that passed nearby. You don't have to disagree with the fact that there was a storm, to determine that your claim is untrue?

[knocker]

Indirect Solar Effects Ultraviolet Radiation

It has also been proposed that ultraviolet (UV) radiation, which varies more than other solar irradiance wavelengths, could amplify the solar influence on the global climate through interactions with the stratosphere and atmospheric ozone.  Shindell et al. (1999) examined this possibility, but found that while this UV variability has a significant influence over regional temperatures, it has little effect on global surface temperatures.

"Solar cycle variability may therefore play a significant role in regional surface temperatures, even though its influence on the global mean surface temperature is small (0.07 K for December–February)."

Moreover, Shindell et al. found that anthropogenic ozone depletion (via chlorofluorocarbon emissions) may have reduced the impact of UV variability on the climate, and may have even offset it entirely.

"Another consideration is that upper stratospheric ozone has decreased significantly since the 1970s as a result of destruction by halogens released from chlorofluorocarbons.  This ozone decrease, which has been much larger than the modeled solar-induced ozone increases, may have limited the ability of solar irradiance changes to affect climate over recent decades, or may have even offset those effects."

Galactic cosmic rays

Henrik Svensmark has proposed that galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) could exert significant influence over global temperatures (Svensmark 1998).  The theory goes that the solar magnetic field deflects GCRs, which are capable of seeding cloud formation on Earth.  So if solar magnetic field were to increase, fewer GCRs would reach Earth, seeding fewer low-level clouds, which are strongly reflective.  So an increased solar magnetic field can indirectly decrease the Earth's albedo (reflectivity), thus causing the planet to warm.  Thus in order for this theory to be plausible,

• Solar magnetic field must have a long-term positive trend.
• Galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth must have a long-term negative trend.
• Cosmic rays must successfully seed low-level clouds.
• Low-level cloud cover must have a long-term negative trend.

Fortunately we have empirical observations with which to test these requirements.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=263

Edited November 9, 2013 by knocker

[feb1991blizzard]

No need to make it personal Feb91. Pointing out their wider costs and problems doesn't mean I want to return to the stone age.

Fossil fuels have had there place and will continue to have their place. It doesn't change their negative impacts, and the costs beyond what you pay at the pump.

It also doesn't change climate science, however much people want to make it a political/ideological issue.

 

 

 

The role of variations in solar activity on our atmospheric circulation is very poorly understood, as someone with a self accredited sceptical mind, I'm sure you'd agree. So the certainty you're ascribing to the effects of solar activity simply aren't backed up by the research or evidence. Try applying your scepticism to more than just CO2!

 

The pattern of warming one would expect from increased solar activity isn't there, so it cannot be the leading cause anyway. It's like using petrol to set you house on fire for the insurance money, then claiming it was caused by a lightening strike from a storm that passed nearby. You don't have to disagree with the fact that there was a storm, to determine that your claim is untrue?

 

Sorry if it came across as personal but it wasn't intended to be, you must also accept though that a lot of people also use it as a political argument the other way as well, I did admit freely that politics doesn't change the laws of science / physics etc and always have done.

[VillagePlank]

As far as I can tell Shindell et al (1999) doesn't contain the sentence "Solar cycle variability may therefore play a significant role in regional surface temperatures, even though its influence on the global mean surface temperature is small" ???

Edited November 9, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Gael_Force]

As far as I can tell Shindell et al (1999) doesn't contain the sentence "Solar cycle variability may therefore play a significant role in regional surface temperatures, even though its influence on the global mean surface temperature is small" ???

 

Just above the February temperature chart.

 

[VillagePlank]

Thanks Gael. It's different print from the NASA GISS one.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Sparkicle

[UV-RAY]

An excellent piece on solar output, it's not IPCC approved because it doesn't include mans contribution.

 

http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

[UV-RAY]

And another excellent piece here from Judith Curry.

 

http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/27/effects-of-solar-variability-on-climate/

[Gael_Force]

With the passage of Haiyan, an immense storm for such a southerly latitude, and the very active WPac year we have seen, I was looking for historical references. I came across this paper on typhoons in China, it is relevant to this topic because of the references to the dates of greatest activity. Could there be any link with current low SSN and hyperactivity in the basin.

 

I wonder if any of you have institutional access to the paper and could comment on the findings.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0004-5608.00253/abstract