Decline in solar output unlikely to offset global warming: study

January 24, 2012, University of Reading

(PhysOrg.com) -- New research has found that solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years but that will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases.

Carried out by the University of Reading and the Met Office, the study establishes the most likely changes in the Sun's activity and looks at how this could affect near-surface temperatures on .

It found that the most likely outcome was that the Sun's output would decrease up to 2100, but this would only cause a reduction in of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions).

Gareth Jones, a climate change detection scientist with the Met Office, said: "This research shows that the most likely change in the Sun's output will not have a big impact on global temperatures or do much to slow the warming we expect from greenhouse gases.

"It's important to note this study is based on a single climate model, rather than multiple models which would capture more of the uncertainties in the climate system."

The study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum - a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level - the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.

During the 20th Century solar activity increased to a ‘grand maximum' and recent studies have suggested this level of activity is at or nearing its end.

Professor Mike Lockwood, an expert in solar studies at the University of Reading, used this as a starting point for looking at the most probable changes in the Sun's activity over the 21st Century.

Met Office scientists then placed the projections into one climate model to see how they may impact temperatures.

Professor Lockwood said: "The 11-year solar cycle of waxing and waning sunspot numbers is perhaps the best known way the Sun changes, but longer term changes in its brightness are more important for possible influences on climate.

"The most likely scenario is that we'll see an overall reduction of the Sun's activity compared to the 20th Century, such that solar outputs drop to the values of the Dalton Minimum (around 1820). The probability of activity dropping as low as the Maunder Minimum - or indeed returning to the high activity of the 20th Century - is about 8%. The findings rely on the assumption that the Sun's past behaviour is a reasonable guide for future solar activity changes."

Peter Stott, who also worked on the research for the Met Office, said: "Our findings suggest that a reduction of to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of on global temperatures in the 21st century."

Explore further: New calculations suggest more than one in ten chance of colder UK winters

More information: The full paper, What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near surface temperature changes? (G. S. Jones, M. Lockwood, and P. A. Stott (2012)), is published online in the Journal of Geophysical Research and can be seen here: www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011JD017013.shtml

Related Stories

Evidence shaky for Sun's major role in past climate changes

September 30, 2004

Computer models of Earth's climate have consistently linked long-term, high-magnitude variations in solar output to past climate changes. Now a closer look at earlier studies of the Sun casts doubt on evidence of such cycles ...

The Sun Loses its Spots

July 24, 2007

While sidewalks crackle in the summer heat, NASA scientists are keeping a close eye on the sun. It is almost spotless, a sign that the Sun may have reached solar minimum. Scientists are now watching for the first spot of ...

Are winters in Europe becoming colder?

April 20, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Despite the trend towards global warming, people in Great Britain and Central Europe will possibly experience cold winters more often in the next few years. This is the findings of a study by scientists from ...

Stronger evidence for human origin of global warming

July 30, 2007

A recent statistical analysis strengthens evidence that human activities are causing world temperatures to rise. Most climate change scientists model Earth systems from the ground up, attempting to account for all climate ...

Recommended for you

The pace at which the world's permafrost soils are warming

January 16, 2019

Global warming is causing increasing damage in the world's permafrost regions. As the new global comparative study conducted by the international permafrost network GTN-P shows, in all regions with permafrost soils the temperature ...

Sewers could help clean the atmosphere

January 16, 2019

Sewage treatment—an unglamorous backbone of urban living—could offer a cost-effective way to combat climate change by flushing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

161 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

deatopmg
1.8 / 5 (35) Jan 24, 2012
"New research has found that solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years but that will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases."

Is that why global temperatures have been stable for the past 15 or so yrs and more recently slowly falling?

Let's hope that Earth's temperature DOESN'T fall to those experienced in the Dalton and especially Maunder minimum because the economic impact on ALL of us will be devastating, as it was during those periods.

Though Stott et al are believer's that GHG's have some "dominant effect" on earth's temperature (what else, they work for the Met Office) that evidence is weak and of poor quality and is getting weaker with nearly every new study (not model, study).

Anyway, Warmer is Better!
TrinityComplex
4.7 / 5 (24) Jan 24, 2012
Care to make references?
http://www.ncdc.n.../2011/13 Is one place you can look at rising temperature trends. You can look at http://en.wikiped...e_record for many other references. I suppose you could just read the wikipedia page, but colleges don't allow references of references. In this case, however, there's a distinct lack of space for all the available references.

You might want to provide some information rather than essentially just saying 'no, this is wrong'.
northwest
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2012
Cold West Europe winter?

Link between weak solar activity and cold winters in west Europe has been indicated in different scientific papers. Low solar activity seems to influence the jet stream and leads towards higher blocking occurrences.
kaasinees
1.4 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2012
uhm we are reaching a solar maximum at the moment so i geuss this paper is for when the solar maximum passes.

After the solar max its most likely that solar output will drop significatly.
axemaster
4.4 / 5 (19) Jan 24, 2012
Is that why global temperatures have been stable for the past 15 or so yrs and more recently slowly falling?

Yeah, because that's totally accurate. /sarcasm
Here's an up-to-date plot of the global temperature data from NASA:
http://data.giss....aphs_v3/Fig.A.gif]http://data.giss....ig.A.gif[/url]

It astounds me how people can continue to be so ignorant when the data is literally at their fingertips.

For more global temp data of all kinds, go here:
http://data.giss....aphs_v3/
GSwift7
2.7 / 5 (15) Jan 24, 2012
uhm we are reaching a solar maximum at the moment so i geuss this paper is for when the solar maximum passes.

After the solar max its most likely that solar output will drop significatly


That's correct. We are almost at the peak of a max, but it's one of the weakest and shortest peaks we have seen in recorded history.

One interesting point about the index we use to measure solar activity is that we use sun spots as an indicator. When sun spots go all the way down to zero, we have no way to know if the sun continues to go down lower, or how far down it goes. All we can see is that it gets down to the point where there's no sun spots, then we lose that indicator. There are a couple other things they look at besides sun spots, but losing one of the few visible indicators makes things tricky for space weather experts.

If decreased solar activity won't slow global warming, and the Earth doesn't warm as much as expected in the next few decades, then what? Question only.
GSwift7
2.5 / 5 (16) Jan 24, 2012
Is that why global temperatures have been stable for the past 15 or so yrs and more recently slowly falling?

Yeah, because that's totally accurate. /sarcasm
Here's an up-to-date plot of the global temperature data from NASA:


The GISS graphs you linked to (first link broken) do show a flat trend for the past 10-15 years. Some records, such as the UAH satellite record show a longer flat trend. GISS is mostly a land record though, so it's expected that it will look different than a satellite record.

However, the trend over the past 10-15 years doesn't really mean anything. Anything less than 30 years is just noise. You have to look at at least 30 years, and there's certainly been an increase in temp over the past 30 years, no matter who's data you use.
plaasjaapie
1.2 / 5 (20) Jan 24, 2012
CYA has got so obvious in the AGW community. It's really pathetic.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (22) Jan 24, 2012
1998 was when RSS (one of the satellite systems measuring temperatures) started to show a dramatic drop.

http://www.woodfo...et:-.232

jakack
1.8 / 5 (19) Jan 24, 2012
New study: People with better knowledge of science are more likely to be sceptical of global warming.

http://papers.ssr...=1871503
Sanescience
2.4 / 5 (15) Jan 25, 2012
I am an AGW agnostic.

Partially because I have intimate knowledge of computers and software and have directly observed what basic assumptions can do to throw off the best thought out programs. And that whenever I drill down into how specific models are constructed, they make some pretty huge assumptions. Ask one of these modelers what their volumetric granularity is, or how earths magnetic fields and high atmosphere charged particles should be modeled, or what estimates their using for convective mixing and moisture conveyance and temperature-pressure gradients for cloud formation they use, and you will start a more philosophical conversation than a scientific one.

gmurphy
4.6 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2012
@jakack, incorrect, the abstract clearly states that people are predisposed by their *values* to dismiss climate change evidence and that this dismissive tendency became more pronounced as scientific literacy increased (within the observed sample).
GSwift7
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2012
@jakack, incorrect, the abstract clearly states that people are predisposed by their *values* to dismiss climate change evidence and that this dismissive tendency became more pronounced as scientific literacy increased (within the observed sample).


Every other survey done in the past showed that education has little to do with how people feel about the environment or conservation. The main factor has always been shown to be political and social preference, and most issues are split just about dead down the middle, 50/50.

My usual word of caution in relation to surveys though: Be very carefull what you are reading and examine the methods with a microscope, then compare that to what their finding were. In polls and surveys, the slightest change in method can cause huge changes in the result, and conversely, two different studies showing the same result can have very different meanings if the methods were different. Who, what, when, where and how all matter.
Xbw
1.3 / 5 (23) Jan 25, 2012
This just in - The sun has disappeared. We no longer have a star or any source of heat...but scientists say that wont stop global warming so stop driving that big gas guzzler and buy a hybrid!

"Global warming" can't be stopped because stupidity is an incurable epidemic. Even in an ice age, our governments would find a way to make it seem hot.
tadchem
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2012
AGW paranoia fails the reductio ad absurdum test of the concept of "positive feedback". If positive feedback existed, then a 'tipping point' would have been reached billions of years ago subsequent to the first random climate fluctuations.
In nuclear physics, we call 'positive feedback' a 'chain reaction', and it doesn't take long, nor can it be reversed.
Howhot
3.3 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2012
Well as a full blown liberal AGW proponent with degrees in tow,I think the situation is so bad, we need the UN to step in for this issue and cram it down you deniers throats. AGW is happening as we speek and will soon disrupt eco-systems across the world eventually effecting our food supply.

I have great confidence in the computer models on AGW and not a single parameter change creates a rosy picture you loonies all seem to think is the future. There are no AGW skeptics with any credibility if the field.

GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (14) Jan 25, 2012
howhot:

we need the UN to step in for this issue and cram it down you deniers throats


wow. You probably know that average people don't talk like that. The majority of people in the world don't have such strong emotional attatchment to any social/political issue, and for most of us it is an automatic turn-off when we hear an extremist spew propaganda. People just don't want to hear that. Even when you are right, you make yourself sound less than fully credible with that kind of emotional outburst.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (16) Jan 25, 2012
"Over the past decade, US winter temperatures have been dropping at a rate of more than 40 degrees per century."

http://www.real-s...ent-cold
RealScience
4 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
@rubberman: many of the positive feedbacks are not 'cirtical mass' types where each step is larger than the previous step. Best estimates are that a degree of CO2 warming causes the atmosphere to hold enough extra H2O for another 0.6 degree, which then adds another 0.36 degrees, which add 0.216 degrees, etc., converging on ~2.5 degrees of warming, not infinite warming. Positive feedback, but less than unity per step. But that is just an estimate and the degree of feedback is NOT KNOWN.

There may also be tipping points (e.g., release of methane from permafrost or clathrates) that do go over unity until trapped methane used up (see PETM).

And yes, some of these feedback loops can go over unity for quite a while - just look at Venus for an example, where it went over unity until the readily releasable carbon was almost all in the atmosphere.
Howhot
2.7 / 5 (10) Jan 26, 2012
G7, well I recommended that AGW skeptics be sent to UN retraining camps, because obviously they are in deep need re-education. They need to relearn that Up is Up and Down is Down. Right now, all you skeptics say Up is Down, and Down is Up. Skeptics must plug there ears and ignore all of the overwhelming observations that point to global warming
being 1) man made and 2) very severe 3) preventable with re-education of the right-wing-nuts!

And Mr. not-RealScience, you are being overly calm about the tipping points. When the polar ice caps melt, (and they will with in 15-20 years) a H-U-G-E feed-back will come into play.
Namely the lack of polar albedo (or lack of surface reflectivity). Methane then goes through the roof then.

Will we are not going to wind up like Venus, we could easily kill the world as we know it, from man made stupidity. The damage done will be more severe than a Yucatan scale comet strike.

All and all watching you AGW skeptics is like rabbits in a head light.
Howhot
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2012
You know what? G7, There is something call pathological skepticism and I think you may qualify for it. Same with Notpark; what's your problem dude.

Let me quote Rubberman:There are no temperature graph references to global cooling. But I haven't checked the website that shows the references for advancing glaciers and the increase in arctic sea ice cover, so the graphs are probably there, right next to the ones showing the southerly advancing permafrost line. Where is that damn site?

Yeah! Rubberman. Show us something that hasn't been discredited as total and pure crap or fake.

NotParker
1 / 5 (12) Jan 26, 2012
1998 was when the climate shifted from slight 30 year warming trend to a cooling trend.

http://www.woodfo...et:-.232
MarkyMark
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 26, 2012
1998 was when the climate shifted from slight 30 year warming trend to a cooling trend.

http://www.woodfo...et:-.232

Wow how did i guess some Tea Party cultist would try that old argument?

Answer cultists tend to believe whatever Fox news 'reports', and/or worship at the altar of Sarah Pain in the ass! And have to cherry pick information to make it seem the world is flat.
RealScience
5 / 5 (2) Jan 26, 2012
@Howhot - I am not that calm about tipping points. What I am is calm in my discussions because I have found that that is more effective than proposing solutions (Maoist-style forcibly reeducating people) that are worse than the problem.

How bad could it get? There is at least an order of magnitude more methane locked up in clathrates than all the fossil fuels that we have burned, and methane is a far more potent green-house gas than CO2.

Still, even releasing this would not be as bad as the Yucatan impact. We have a good idea of what the result would be - it would look like the PETM. In the PETM the planet warmed between 5C and 10C, with the arctic warming 15C-20C. Current sea levels would rise ~100 meters.

That's more of a temperature change than an ice age, but it did not wipe out as much life as the Yucatan impact and the Deccan traps.

-continued-
RealScience
3.5 / 5 (2) Jan 26, 2012
So why am I still calm?

I am confident that with the rate of progress in climate modelling and computing power, we will soon have a pretty good understanding of the impact of CO2 and other GHGs, of ocean currents, of the sun, and other factor, and will be able to make pretty accurate predictions and run what-if scenarios.

And I am confident that big energy companies will figure out how to make big money from renewable energy, and that once when they do renewable energy will grow very rapidly. In fact it is already growing fast enough - if solar continues its growth rate for 40 years, it will deliver several times the energy that humanity uses today.

Science is very good at solving crises, so once it becomes a crisis we will figure out how to react fast.

And what if we are currently preventing an ice age? (remember, a single ice age can ruin your whole day).

We need to earth's understand climate, and to then control what we release into the atmosphere accordingly.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 26, 2012
1998 was when the climate shifted from slight 30 year warming trend to a cooling trend.

http://www.woodfo...et:-.232


Its a trend graph. From RSS satellite data. Down since 1998.

Another trend here: http://www.real-s...ent-cold

I also have to say that this is the most rudimentary temperature graph I have ever seen....seriously, a line drawn with a ruler between 3 points...given the nature of the site I bet the ruler is made of wood though....

NotParker
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 26, 2012
According to HadCrut3 databases 2011 was the 12th warmest year, with a temperature anomaly of 0.342, behind 2010, 2009, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 1998 and 1997.

http://thegwpf.or...-10.html

Brrrr.
RealScience
5 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2012
@rubberman - When a lot of people lose their cool thermally, then we will see some fast action on greenhouse gases.
In the mean time calling for 're-educating' skeptics as HH did turns a lot of people off, and does far more harm than good.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (16) Jan 27, 2012
And using that same HADCRUT data we discover 2011 was .35C warmer than 1878.

Assuming that there is a perfect set of data uncontaminated by the urban heat island effect (not a chance) that means it is warming at a miniscule rate of .026C per decade.

http://www.real-s...s-warmer

CO2 supposedly causes warming of .2C per decade.

Ha ha ha ha.
RealScience
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2012
@NotParker - Simply dividing to get 0.026C/decade and comparing it to today's 0.2C estimate assumes that we increased the atmosphere's CO2 at the same rate from 1878 to now. You know better than that.

Furthermore it is a line drawn with a ruler between only TWO points.

And if the 12th warmest year on record is 2011 and the years that beat it are all in the last 15 year, that sounds like a warm last 15 years to me.

A single year is not evidence of a trend for EITHER cooling or warming. Even a decade is a pretty short time...
Howhot
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2012
Real, I hear what your saying. Funny true story; A teenage kid was kiiled in the Smokey Mountains. He was mauled by a black bear. The kid kept poking the bear with a stick for nearly 5 minutes to see when it would move.

That is how I see the Global warming deniers that post on Physorg all the time. They are the teenager too naive to grasp just how dangerous AGW could be for mankind extending out 100-200 years.

I don't think that our advanced lifestyles will take the disruption that is sure to occur when the big swings in weather patterns takes hold. I'm not as optimistic as RealS is about big energy coming to the rescue. The way I see it, there will be a huge massive shift to a (near) all-electric society as peak oil comes in full to play. But that means using more cheap and abundant coal (and lack of wisdom to solve a longer term problems of AGW/CO2).

So if you don't understand my reactionary taunts, just know its with good intentions.

PS: the UN joke was tongue-in-cheek
NotParker
1 / 5 (10) Jan 28, 2012
How cold is it really? Considering that current temperatures are overstated because UHI is ignored ... it is pretty cold.

http://www.ncdc.n.../na.html

Pick Annual, Table, Rank

1934 is the 3rd warmest year in US history and the warmest is only .25F warmer. 1931 was 10th warmest.

1934 was warmer than every year this century except for 2006.
1921 was warmer than every year this century except for 2006. 1934,1931,1930 and 1938 were warmer than 2011.
1934,1931,1930, 1938 and 1933 were warmer than 2010.

The last four years (2011,2010,2009 and 2008) didn't even make the top 17 years.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 28, 2012
They are the teenager too naive to grasp just how dangerous AGW could be for mankind extending out 100-200 years.


The real danger is the ice age that will end this interglacial. If AGW were real, instead of just a tiny bit of warming that has almost got us back to pre-LIA temperatures, it might help stave off the ice age.

But it won't. Billions will die.

The world can handle being the same temperature as the 1930s.

It can't handle the massive drop in temperature due this century.

http://joannenova...9c-fall/
_nigmatic10
2 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2012
"It's important to note this study is based on a single climate model, rather than multiple models which would capture more of the uncertainties in the climate system."


That really says it all right there. An admission of uncertainties coupled with best guesses on what the model variables have not covered equals junk science and opinions.
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2012

PS: the UN joke was tongue-in-cheek


Thanks for the clarification - an emoticon would have made it clear to start with.

Your story of poking the bear is a good one - it should be in the Darwin awards.

The feedback that worries me is the methane, both in permafrost and on the sea bed. The other feedbacks are either not plausible at this time (Venus-style dissociation of carbonates), or are self limiting (decrease in albedo from melting ice stops when the ice is gone).

The methane is a time bomb that nature has accumulated. We are currently playing with fire near the fuse.
However that much natural gas is potentially a huge resource worth many trillion of dollars. The energy companies could make a few trillion dollars by defuse a millions-of-years-old time bomb while supplying us with cleaner energy (enough energy that we could afford some of it to sequester the CO2).
As other fossil fuels get scarce, big energy SHOULD go after this huge resource.
hopper
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2012
http://www.dailym...-newsxml

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

By David Rose

Last updated at 5:38 AM on 29th January 2012

Comments (560)
Share

The supposed consensus on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research U
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2012
I am confident that with the rate of progress in climate modelling and computing power, we will soon have a pretty good understanding of the impact of CO2 and other GHGs,

How do you accurately model an emergent system that effectively has an infinite number of components to model?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2012
I recommended that AGW skeptics be sent to UN retraining camps,

Including skeptical climate scientists with years of experience and publications?

But this is a typical socialist response when they loose their argument.
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2012
R2, I've all ready sent your name to the IPCC for early retraining :-) I don't think the solar reading are wrong, if you follow SOHO long enough the Sun is starting to wake up again as the fusion core swings around dragging with it, the solar magnetic fields and sun spots.

There is a problem with the article Hopper sites. The earth isn't getting cooler. Explain, why the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps, Greenland and just about every glacier field across the world are melting. Explain why the Ocean's PH is dropping and becoming more acidic. Explain the additional water vapor in the atmosphere. Explain the shift of the jet stream further north. Explain the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere or methane.

You can't. The only explanation that answers all of these observations is that extremely excessive CO2 emissions from humans global energy creation (coal fire electric, oil for gasoline, and natural gas for heat) has created a giant green house window over Earths atmosphere.



Jayded
5 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2012
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." -Tolstoy
Howhot
3 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2012
The methane is a time bomb that nature has accumulated. We are currently playing with fire near the fuse.


Realscience: Sorry about the confusion on the re-education camps. They are not meant for liberal, AGW alarmist, green heads climatologists like you and me. They will just give us gardening literature with a free recycle bucket instead! ;-)

RealScience
5 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2012

How do you accurately model an emergent system that effectively has an infinite number of components to model?


You don't.
WEATHER is an emergent system where the number of significant variables grows very rapidly with the timescale of the forecast.
CLIMATE is also hugely complex, but longer timescales add only modest numbers of significant factors (longer-term feedback effects).

For example, all our computing/modelling power cannot tell me whether July 4th this year will be sunny or rainy where I live - that's weather, dominated by chaos. But unless we have a huge volcano or asteroid strike, everywhere within a thousand miles every day in July will be warmer than any day in January - that's climate, dominated by a few factors.

Getting PRECISE and LOCAL climate predictions would greatly increase the number of significant factors, but for AGW we just need to know the direction and MAGNITUDE of the natural changes and of GHG impact.
NotParker
1 / 5 (11) Jan 30, 2012
Chicken Little: Methane. I meant methane! Sure, I know I said CO2 was the problem and then it stopped warming in 1998 ... but I meant methane! Did you have a hearing problem. I never said CO2. I said methane. I need to keep the con game going.
RealScience
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2012
@NotParker - You are deliberately being thick.

Unless we would otherwise be entering an ice age (which you might have noticed I consider possible), the problem is GHGs in general. That includes water vapor (the dominant greenhouse gas) as well as CO2 and methane. Talking about one GHG doesn't mean that other GHGs are not important, and you KNOW that.

Have you read up on the PETM? Have you read up on how much methane trapped in clathrates and below the permafrost? Have you read about the relative warming effects of methane and of CO2?

CO2 traps heat. Heat evaporates water, which traps more heat. Heat melts ice to water, absorbing more heat. Heat also speeds up decay, releasing CO2, which traps more heat. These amplify the effect of the original CO2 by an amount between 1x and 4x (best estimate ~2.5x).

But if heat starts releasing methane, that amplification could get MUCH higher.

-continued-
RealScience
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2012
And I'm far from an AGW extremist. There is some evidence that we would have entered an ice age already if it weren't for forest clearing releasing CO2 starting ~10,000 years ago and rice farming releasing methane starting ~5000 years ago. Since where I am sitting was under 3 km of ice 15,000 years ago, I'm not too fond of ice ages either.

We need to be able to EITHER cut back our GHG (and soot) emissions to control warming, or to increase emissions to prevent an ice age (right now the best estimates are that we need to cut back, and fairly rapidly). And we need to KNOW what the sun and our orbit would do and how much GHGs would prevent something catastrophic.

We couldn't yet do much to counteract major volcanic activity, but we are now powerful enough to smooth out the effects of the earth's orbit and what we have seen of the sun's variability (as for humanity not being able to affect the atmosphere and the climate, that's BULL).
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2012
Chicken Little: Methane. I meant methane! Sure, I know I said CO2 was the problem and then it stopped warming in 1998 ... but I meant methane! Did you have a hearing problem. I never said CO2.


Another raving anti-warming ignoramus trying to believe his crap that it stopped warming in 1998. Thats about as crazy as little green men on Mars. Complete pathological skepticism and self-delusional as well.
NotParker
1 / 5 (12) Jan 30, 2012
1998 Pivot of RSS satellite data

http://www.woodfo...fset:-.3

HADCRUT - slopes down after 1998

http://www.woodfo...77/trend
NotParker
1 / 5 (12) Jan 30, 2012
CO2 didn't trap heat in the last interglacial period - the Eemian.

CO2 rose 100ppm after temperature rose 10C. And then it cooled for a while and then got cold for another 100,000 years until our interglacial - the Holocene.

http://www.ferdin...ian.html

Our interglacial will end. CO2 will do nothing to top the coming ice age.

CO2 is a response to warming because warm water holds less CO2.

RealScience
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2012
@NotParker - Yes, warm water holds less CO2, so rising temperatures raise CO2. But CO2 traps heat, which raises the temperature. That's exactly the type of feedback being discussed, and the direction of the feedback is well known even if the magnitude isn't.

CO2 thus both follows and causes temperature increases, which is why CO2 following temperature does NOT show that CO2 doesn't cause warming. Surely you are smart enough to understand that.

And since YOU say that climate can't be modeled accurately, how can YOU say that CO2 didn't trap heat in the last interglacial? Don't you mean that Eemian CO2 didn't trap ENOUGH heat to prevent the subsequent ice age?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2012
But CO2 traps heat,

No, it does not.
How much heat is 'trapped' over a dry desert at night? Not much.
RealScience
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2012
@ryggesogn2 - more than would be if there were no CO2 in thee atmosphere.

Water vapor is the dominant green house gas, so in a dry desert there is much less heat trapping. But CO2 still traps about 1.6 Watts per square meter on the average..

That's not a huge amount - a black body at 0C/32F radiates 315 W/m2, and the average land on earth a good fraction of that, so it's a bit under 1% of the radiation sent out that CO2 DIRECTLY traps.

So your 'No it does not' is wrong, but your 'not much' is correct.

However the impact over non-desert is much larger because the bit of warming from that trapping lets the air hold more moisture, and water vapor is a stronger GHG than CO2.
HOW much larger is not known, but best estimates are ~2.5x
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 31, 2012
But CO2 still traps about 1.6 Watts per square meter on the average..

At what wavelengths?
RealScience
4 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2012
@ryggesogn2 - 13-15 microns. H20 blocks a much broader swath of wavelengths, but leaves a window open near the peak of earth's infrared spectrum. CO2 blocks PART of that window.
Howhot
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2012
@Nopark and R2, I think RealScience has shown that your views of global warming are wrong. Just the facts show you need to rethink you assumptions and reconsider your sources of info.
Well done repudiation Real.

RealScience
3 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2012
@Howhot - please remember that while some of the science is known (that CO2, H20, CH4, etc are GHGs and contribute warmth for 150 years, and the magnitude of their DIRECT effects for 100 years), the indirect effects and the sun's variability are still estimates.
The estimates are currently good enough to warrant the precautionary principle: RECENT TRENDS ARE WARMING, SO MINIMIZE OUR WARMING IMPACT UNTIL WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING.

But there is a lot of work to do to understand whether we still need some warming to prevent an ice-age or whether we now need some cooling to prevent runaway warming.

Where NP really screws up is that he doesn't even want more research because he thinks that modelling is futile and that we are doomed by an ice-age anyway.

As for R2, I agree with him that IF (a big if) we had a level playing field and the IF impacts were known, private enterprise would fix the problem faster than government.
But R2 shouldn't ignore the KNOWN parts of the science.
NotParker
1 / 5 (13) Feb 01, 2012
1.6W/sq m? Is that a wild assed guess by the IPCC?

Albedo changes are a lot larger.

"The annual average albedo declined very gradually from 1985 to 1995, and then declined sharply in 1995 and 1996. These observed declines are broadly consistent with previously known satellite measures of cloud amount.

The low albedo during 1997-2001 increased solar heating of the globe at a rate more than twice that expected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This dimming of Earth, as it would be seen from space, is perhaps connected with the recent accelerated increase in mean global surface temperatures."

http://wattsupwit...g-story/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Feb 01, 2012
But R2 shouldn't ignore the KNOWN parts of the science.

I don't agree with what you claim to be the 'known' parts of 'science'.
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2012
@ryggesogn2 - 13-15 microns. H20 blocks a much broader swath of wavelengths, but leaves a window open near the peak of earth's infrared spectrum. CO2 blocks PART of that window.

And allows heat to radiate at other windows.
deepsand
2.4 / 5 (14) Feb 01, 2012

And allows heat to radiate at other windows.

So what? That has no effect on that which is captured.

A photon of a given wavelength cannot arbitrarily change that so as to escape.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2012
A 15um 'ish' photon is absorbed by a molecule of CO2. Then what? The CO2 vibrates...forever? or does it somehow radiate a photon with a longer wavelength.
How many photons/sec are being radiated by a gray body at 300K? Are all captured by those few CO2 molecules?
If more CO2 is in the atm, how many more photons are absorbed and re-radiated and does it matter much?
RealScience
5 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2012
@R2 - Since you ask I'll assume that you want to know.
The 15um-ish photons are almost all outward bound, because the peak of the spectrum of the earth at ~300K is near 15um.

In the simplest case, after a typically-outward-bound 15um-ish photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule, the molecule re-radiates a 15um-ish photon in a random direction. If that new photon happens to be outward-bound, then no the CO2 had no impact. But half of the re-radiated photons will be inward-bound, and will carry that energy back to the earth (anything horizontal gets reabsorbed and re-radiated until it is either outward-bound or inward-bound.

It's more complex because the CO2 is not all in one layer, some photons get through, and not all re-radiated photons are at the same wavelength, but the basic principle holds that the more CO2 there is, the more 15um-ish photons are bounced back toward earth, leading to net warming. It's actually easy enough to model that it was worked out by hand before computers.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (16) Feb 01, 2012
A 15um 'ish' photon is absorbed by a molecule of CO2. Then what? The CO2 vibrates...forever? or does it somehow radiate a photon with a longer wavelength.
How many photons/sec are being radiated by a gray body at 300K? Are all captured by those few CO2 molecules?
If more CO2 is in the atm, how many more photons are absorbed and re-radiated and does it matter much?

Photonic energy is quantized. An absorbing body can neither absorb nor re-radiate a photon of an arbitrary wavelength.

Spontaneous re-radiation is omnidirectional, so that half, ignoring Earth's curvature and the altitude at which such occurs, of all IR absorbed by atmospheric compounds is directed Earthward.
RealScience
5 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2012
- continued -
The direct effects matter a bit, but not a huge amount because CO2 is not that great an IR absorber, and outside of a narrow window H2O would have absorbed most of the photons anyway.

The danger is the INDIRECT effects - the warmer air holds more H2O, which is a stronger GHG than CO2. Warmer air also melts more snow and ice, lowering the planet's albedo.

And some feedbacks are more copmplex - warmth also encourages plant growth, which warms the earth by lowering its albedo but also absorbs CO2, and the extra H2O creates more clouds which raise the albedo during the day but trap heat at night.

And the dangerous one is methane, which is a much more potent GHG than CO2 and is often trapped by cold temperatures (permafrost and clathrates), and MIGHT lead to runaway warming up to 5C-10C.

While the direct effects are known, the indirect effects are merely estimates with a high degree of uncertainty.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2012
So you claim that 10e17 15 um photons/s/cm2 are sufficiently 'trapped' by a few ppm of CO2 to increase the temperature of the entire planet by 1 or 2 K?
But if the temperature rises, the peak BB curve shifts to the left and the actual number of 15um photons bouncing about won't change much.
I notice most of the 'evidence' is quite empirical with little or no lab data. Something which should be quite easy to measure.
Bottom line is that CO2 is easy to measure in the atm as it is well mixed so, viola, the computer models are 'adjusted' to tag CO2 as the culprit because it is too difficult to measure water vapor and on orbit radiometers are still quite crude. The are crude since both NPL and NASA want to orbit radiometers that are NIST traceable. Current systems are not.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2012

And allows heat to radiate at other windows.

So what? That has no effect on that which is captured.

A photon of a given wavelength cannot arbitrarily change that so as to escape.

You do understand that photons can be absorbed at one wavelength and that energy can be emitted at another depending upon the atomic or molecular state. HeNe lasers are pumped with shorter wavelength light to emit the longer wavelength red beam.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (16) Feb 01, 2012
There's no mechanism in the atmosphere that keeps pumping photons into a molecular so as to induce re-radiation at a higher energy level.
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2012
So you claim that 10e17 15 um photons/s/cm2 are sufficiently 'trapped' by a few ppm of CO2 to increase the temperature of the entire planet by 1 or 2 K?


Actually I wouldn't call 390ppm a "FEW PPM OF CO2". I believe Hansen has it calculated to 340ppm (fact check) as the break-even point. However based on current exponential growth patterns, we could easily be 1000ppm in 20years or less.

deepsand
2.9 / 5 (17) Feb 01, 2012
So you claim that 10e17 15 um photons/s/cm2 are sufficiently 'trapped' by a few ppm of CO2 to increase the temperature of the entire planet by 1 or 2 K?

You continue to ignore the facts that individual contributions of any and all compounds which absorb CO2 are cumulative, and that any increase in radiative forcing results in several positive feedback loops, primarily through decreased albedo and increased atmospheric H2O saturation levels.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2012
So you claim that 10e17 15 um photons/s/cm2 are sufficiently 'trapped' by a few ppm of CO2 to increase the temperature of the entire planet by 1 or 2 K?


Actually I wouldn't call 390ppm a "FEW PPM OF CO2". I believe Hansen has it calculated to 340ppm (fact check) as the break-even point. However based on current exponential growth patterns, we could easily be 1000ppm in 20years or less.


What is the mean free path of a 15 um photon through the atm? What is the cross sectional area of a CO2 molecule? CO2 doesn't just suck in a photon like a vacuum cleaner.
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2012
R2; here is your government at work (as I eat crow),

http://www.nasa.g...ing.html

Now, you just need to recognize where the water vapor comes from and why!
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2012
Also, I hate to reference YAHOO but I thought this was quite good in answering your queries of me. I learned a thing or two.

http://answers.ya...4AAAeign
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2012
@r2 - Our atmosphere is heavy, so "a few ppm" in our atmosphere is actually a lot of CO2.

Accurate data has been kept since 1959, and CO2 has gone up by 76 ppm since then. 1 ATM = 14 PSI = ~1 ton per square foot, 76 ppm is 76 * 2000 / 1,000,000 psf = 0.152, or 2.4 oz per square foot, or 21 ounces per square yard.
Extra heavy denim (blue-jean jacket) material is typically only 16 oz per square yard.
So by WEIGHT we have added enough CO2 to cover the entire planet with a jacket, just since 1959.

Clearly that much material COULD trap a lot of heat, but CO2 really isn't that strong a GHG. So the DIRECT effect of the CO2 alone is a bit less than 1K.

The indirect effects are much less certain, and are mostly done by curve fitting, with the best fit totaling a 2.5x amplification of the direct effects.

And we are putting out CO2 faster and faster these days.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (18) Feb 02, 2012
CO2 doesn't just suck in a photon like a vacuum cleaner.

Not only does it not have to, but it's got plenty of helpers.

THEY ALL ADD UP. :rolleyes:

And, the problem isn't that it absorbs IR photons, but that it back-scatters them by RE-EMITTING them. Otherwise, it would reduce radiative forcing!
kochevnik
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2012
And allows heat to radiate at other windows.
A photon of a given wavelength cannot arbitrarily change that so as to escape.
Yes it can, you crank.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2012
What is the mean free path for a 15 micron photon?
That data should roll off the tongues of CO2 AGWites.
How many molecules of CO2 are in 350 ppm? That, too should be readily available for those who want to prove the evils of CO2.
Excalibur
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2012
A photon of a given wavelength cannot arbitrarily change that so as to escape.
Yes it can, you crank.

One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small.
But the ones that Kochevnik's pushing don't do anything at all.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2012
R2; here is your government at work (as I eat crow),

http://www.nasa.g...ing.html

Now, you just need to recognize where the water vapor comes from and why!

What are the IR absorption bands for water vapor. More and wider than for CO2.
Of course it is water vapor that keeps heat from escaping into space at night. Cold dry air can allow the temperature to drop over 30 deg F at night.
I don't notice much heat being retained in the dry desert at night from CO2. Should be real easy to measure to prove your fantasies.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2012
R2; here is your government at work (as I eat crow),

http://www.nasa.g...ing.html

Now, you just need to recognize where the water vapor comes from and why!

"This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity, "
Who would have thought that heat was the cause for high humidity in the tropics? Those NASA guys are really smart?

"Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned." NO...., how can this be?

Maybe these guys should go outside once in a while. They should visit Bahrain or Jeddah in the summer. 120+F with 100% humidity. And that is a LOT of water. The capacity of the atm to hold water is not linear with temperature.
An increase from 30-40C increases water vapor pressure from 32 to over 50 mmHg. From 15 to 30 C, the change is 13 to 32 mm Hg. Not well mixed. Not easy to model so abstract it away.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2012
Poor Libertarian Tard Boy. Always asking the wrong questions to long answered issues.

"What is the mean free path of a 15 um photon through the atm? What is the cross sectional area of a CO2 molecule?" - RyggTard

What you really want to know is the extinction coefficient so that you can employ Beer's law, rather than trying to develop beer's law from inappropriate concepts like radiative mean free paths and interaction cross sections.

Here is what you weren't smart enough to ask for.

Atmospheric transmittance measurements of CO2 and near IR laser radiation over 8.6 km

http://adsabs.har...88..670W

Nothing here about 15 micron photons. Only 1-10 microns. CO2 absorbs quite well ~4.2 um. A black body with a peak of 4.2 microns has a temperature of a jet engine. Which is one reason why IR missiles for aircraft operate in the 3-5 um band.
RealScience
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2012

Nothing here about 15 micron photons. Only 1-10 microns. CO2 absorbs quite well ~4.2 um. A black body with a peak of 4.2 microns has a temperature of a jet engine. Which is one reason why IR missiles for aircraft operate in the 3-5 um band.


@r2 - a few seconds with Google would find you the absorption spectrum of CO2. Here is a nice, simple image for you. As you can see, the ~13um-~15um absorption band is broader than the 4.2um one that you call 'absorbing quite well':
http://www.bom.go.../4.shtml
Note that the ~13-~15um CO2 peak corresponds to a window in H2O's absorption which is near the peak of 255K thermal emissions.

Also your point about how much heat H2O vapor traps and how much more H2O warm air holds is exactly one of the indirect feedbacks amplifying CO2's modest direct warming potential.
You have just highlighted that the DIRECT warming from CO2 allows the air to hold additional H2O which adds INDIRECT warming.
RealScience
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2012
As for number of CO2 molecules per cm2:
1 ATM is ~100,000 N/m2 = ~10 N/cm2 = ~1 kg/cm2 = ~1000 grams/cm2.
~1000 grams of air (N2 with some O2) is ~1000g/cm2 / 29g/mole = ~34 moles/cm2 = ~34 x 6E23 = ~2E25 molecules per cm2.
The 108 ppm increase in CO2 is measured in molecules (not by weight), so each ppm is ~2x10^19 molecules/cm2 and 108 ppm is ~2x10^21 molecules per cm2.

So to answer your question, humans have ADDED roughly 2E21 (2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) molecules of CO2 per cm2 to the atmosphere.
And yes, 2e21 molecules could easily trap 10e17 photons per second...

Do you now admit that doing the math that YOU asked for SUPPORTS rather than REFUTES that CO2 could have the impact ascribed to it?

Since YOU are challenging the math of people who spend their lives in this field, YOU should be doing the math to see whether they are wrong rather than ME doing YOUR math for you.
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (15) Feb 05, 2012
Since YOU are challenging the math of people who spend their lives in this field, YOU should be doing the math to see whether they are wrong rather than ME doing YOUR math for you.

He would not even were he able.

He's just playing the same game that a child does by asking an endless series of "Why?" questions so as to delay bed time.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (14) Feb 05, 2012
And yes, 2e21 molecules could easily trap 10e17 photons per second...

How much space is between molecules?
The real key is mean free path probability of capture.
Photons are very small as are CO2 molecules.
But even if ALL 15 microns photon are captured within a few meters, how will adding more CO2 change the 100% capture rate?
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (15) Feb 05, 2012
Duh. :rolleyes:

Because a finite number of molecules can only absorb a finite number of photons, all of which are re-emitted.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 05, 2012
Just a rough calculation is that .7% of a cubic meter is physically occupied by air.
~3% of that air is CO2 so .03*.007 = .00021 => .021% of a cubic meter of air is occupied by CO2.
The diameter of a molecule of CO2 is on the order of 10-8 cm. Of course photons travel ~3e8 m/s.
Because a finite number of molecules can only absorb a finite number of photons, all of which are re-emitted.

But there are only a finite number of 15 um photons to bounce around and some must eventually radiate into space.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (17) Feb 05, 2012
BFD.

The more gas molecules in the atmosphere that absorb IR, the fewer IR photons that will escape.

Just what is your fascination with 15 um? Is 15 your age?
NotParker
1 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2012
Since 1940 the average January temp in the Continental U.S. has risen at a rate of 3.5'C per decade.


Actually, since 1986 Winter temperatures have declined in the USA at a rate of -.14F per decade.

25 years of slightly cooling winters.

http://i42.tinypi...vvj8.jpg

116 is the warmest winter. The last 5 haven't even made the top 35.

http://i44.tinypi...pxls.jpg
Howhot
3.8 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2012
Bottom line R2, your fact-checking needs correcting. You seem like a decent guy, you just need to rethink your politico.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 06, 2012
"Actually, since 1986 Winter temperatures have declined in the USA at a rate of -.14F per decade."


2011 was the 37th coldest winter out of 116
2010 was the 15th coldest winter out of 116.
2009 was the 77th coldest winter out of 116.
2008 was the 63rd coldest winter out of 116.
2007 was the 81st coldest winter out of 116.

I wonder why Vendicam is yammering about 1981 when the most recent 5 winters were so damn cold.

http://i44.tinypi...pxls.jpg

As for annual temps.

1934 is the 3rd warmest year in US history.

1934 was warmer than every year this century except for 2006.
1934,1931,1930 and 1938 were warmer than 2011.
1934,1931,1930, 1938 and 1933 were warmer than 2010.

The 1930s were a lot warmer than the last 5 years.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 06, 2012
Did you know 1936 was the warmest summer in US history?

Did you know 1979 was the coldest winter? You remember the ice age scare climate scientists were trying in the 1970s?
Excalibur
2.6 / 5 (14) Feb 06, 2012
Do you ever intend to stop being a low life moron, Parker Tard?

And throw away all that he's worked so hard for?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 06, 2012
Bottom line R2, your fact-checking needs correcting. You seem like a decent guy, you just need to rethink your politico.

My politics?
Had AGWites chosen NOT to dabble in politics and had their data be more substantial, they may have been convincing.
But they chose to create the political UN IPCC and try to use force. And the 'scientists' chose to us media and politicians to intimidate and hinder any real debate.
And Hottie, you are fine example of an AGWite zealot advocating re-education camps for those who don't agree with you.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 06, 2012
BFD.

The more gas molecules in the atmosphere that absorb IR, the fewer IR photons that will escape.

Just what is your fascination with 15 um? Is 15 your age?


A change of temp from 300 to 301 K increase the 14.9-15.1 radiation by 4e-6 W/cm2.
Why 15 um? Those are the photons absorbed by CO2 are are blamed for increasing temperatures.
NotParker
1 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2012
The U.S. constitutes less than 2 percent of the global surface area, and one year does not constitute a trend.


And yet, it is supposed to be GLOBAL warming. And it is getting really cold in the US.

2011 was the 37th coldest winter out of 116
2010 was the 15th coldest winter out of 116.
2009 was the 77th coldest winter out of 116.
2008 was the 63rd coldest winter out of 116.
2007 was the 81st coldest winter out of 116.

No matter how many childish insults you throw out, the last 5 winters were very, very cold.
NotParker
1 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2012
Climate change is defined over periods 30 years long.


There hasn't been a 30 year warming period in the last 70 years.

http://www.woodfo...77/trend

Maybe you were thinking of the MWP which was warmer than today?
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 06, 2012
There hasn't been a 30 year warming period in the last 70 years.


Consider that in 1943/1945 the HADCRUT temperature anomaly rose above .2 3 times in 1.5 years.

1944 0.245
1944.67 0.216
1945.58 0.306

In the last 3 years the anomaly dropped BELOW those 3 peaks 3 times.

2008 0.074
2008.08 0.198
2011 0.204

Within the margin of error, it is barely warmer than 1943/45.
NotParker
1 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2012
It is statistical abuse to arbitrarily break up a time series as you have done to cherry pick various trends to your liking.


You claimed only 30 year periods were valid.

I proved there weren't any 30 year periods of warming.

You get so huffy and deranged when I prove you very, very wrong.

You need psychiatric help.

NotParker
1 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2012
Further you have dishonestly chosen to use hadrcrut which is a time series that generally excludes the polar regions.


GISS has extrapolates temperatures from 1200km into the polar regions.

At least HADCRUT doesn't make up numbers like GISS does.

You are running out of data. You hate HADCRUT because it humiliates you. Same for NOAA. RSS shows significant cooling since 1998.

You are so deranged.
NotParker
1 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2012
I claimed that climate is defined over 30 plus year periods. The plus was removed by the editor.


Ha ha ha. Blaming the editor? What a whiner.

Which cycle in the graph below is 30 plus years? The cooling one.

http://www.woodfo...77/trend

Howhot
5 / 5 (4) Feb 07, 2012
From the looks of it, VD has you NP. Based on the Signal to Noise, that flat line in your graph is does not include enough data to predict a long term trend. If you do that analysis, it most certainly is trending upward. Great website find BTW.

Your missing the point NP. Every so called "FACT" that you argue is proof, is total BS. Give it up. You've lost the debate.

deepsand
3 / 5 (14) Feb 07, 2012
NP's been plying this trade for years now. He's not going to give it up, as it's all he has.
Howhot
5 / 5 (4) Feb 07, 2012
Interesting website NP. Here is my take on global average temperatures since 1887.

http://www.woodfo...87/trend

Do you see the trend? Also, as Al Gore has shown, CO2 (a green house gas) levels are increasing exponentially with fossil fuel consumption and with additional CO2 global average temperatures have risen. Will the temperature rise track exactly with CO2?

It doesn't matter. CO2 has huge effect on Ocean Acidification, and that will lead to the anthropogenic massive extinction events from AGW.
NotParker
1 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2012
flat line in your graph is does not include enough data to predict a long term trend


Thats kind of like suggesting because El Nino and La Nina are short term trends up and down you can't predict a long term trend.

The long term trend is up and down UNTIL THE HOLOCENE ENDS!

The PDO goes positive and negative. AMO goes up and down. Those are 20-30 year cycles.

The LIA was a deep cold period. It ended.

There are Bond Event cycles (look it up) in the 1000 year range.

The Eemian was the pervious interglacial. It ended. 110,000 cycles.

VD is an idiot who has zero interest in actual climate.
NotParker
1.2 / 5 (13) Feb 07, 2012
Do you see the trend?


I see the TRENDS.

http://www.woodfo...77/trend

If you were a farmer deciding which crops to plant, you could lose your crops if you took YOUR trend and predicted continued warming.

If the same farmer looked the TRENDS hoe would pick a crop that does better int cooler periods because the trend for the next 20-30 years will be negative.

Maybe 30 years from now natural recovery from the LIA will start again in the same way there was a decade and half of warming after the 40 years of cooling from 1940 to 1980.

But considering how weak SC24 is and how miniscule SC25 will be, I'll bet on 50-100 years of cooling.

http://iceagenow....cooling/
Howhot
5 / 5 (4) Feb 07, 2012
Deep:
NP's been plying this trade for years now. He's not going to give it up, as it's all he has.


That maybe true. It doesn't mean we can't have fun with the mouse while it still squeaks. No, most of these AGW deniers on this board are either paid for spooks or brainwashed rightwingers from Kansas.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2012
No, most of these AGW deniers on this board are either paid for spooks or brainwashed rightwingers from Kansas.

It's interesting how the AGWites believe skeptics must be paid.
I guess they are projecting as it is the AGW proponents who benefit from more research grants, papers, prestige and the corporate interests who are raking in all the govt subsides. And don't forget AlGore's carbon trading scheme and the 'solution' proposed by govts is to raise taxes.
I guess it is understandable how AGWites believe people like me are paid since they cannot comprehend how anyone could disagree based upon principles as AGWites have none.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2012
No, most of these AGW deniers on this board are either paid for spooks or brainwashed rightwingers from Kansas.

It's interesting how the AGWites believe skeptics must be paid.
I guess they are projecting as it is the AGW proponents who benefit from more research grants, papers, prestige and the corporate interests who are raking in all the govt subsides. And don't forget AlGore's carbon trading scheme and the 'solution' proposed by govts is to raise taxes.
I guess it is understandable how AGWites believe people like me are paid since they cannot comprehend how anyone could disagree based upon principles as AGWites have none.

And don't forget that Eron was a big promoter of the Kyoto Treaty.
Howhot
5 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2012
You know NP, that is pretty interesting website; the wood for trees interactive. So here is your deal; your saying you will bet for 50-100 years of cooling. That would probably happen in a sane world. You are purposefully telling yourself to ignore the heat trapping of AGW CO2 from fossil fuels.

Do a Fourier transform of your data (to show frequencies trends) and scale it by 20 so you can see it. If you do, the FFT spikes on the right hand side, meaning an exponential rise in data (in our case, temperatures). Project that out to a hundred years bub.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2012
"Enron pushed it hard. In 1997, Ken Lay met with Clinton and Gore in the White House and boosted the treaty. In 2000, an Enron memo exclaimed that the treaty would be "good for Enron stock!" The company planned to get rich off of brokering a government-created industry in carbon-credit trading. Also, Enron's coal-fired power plants were all in third-world countries unaffected by the treaty."
"Pointing out who profits from "green" policy is as legitimate as pointing out who would profit from deregulation or tax cuts--a favorite media pastime. "
"A Carbon Dioxide tax? That's the policy advocated by Duke Energy CEO Paul Anderson, whose company is unusually reliant on coal-fired power plants."

http://www.huffin...017.html
It really is amusing how the AGWites are the useful idiots shilling for crony 'capitalists'.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2012
"Enron now has excellent credentials with many green interests including Greenpeace, WWF [World Wildlife Fund], NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council], GermanWatch, The US Climate Action Network, the European Climate Action Network, Ozone Action, WRI [World Resources Institute], and Worldwatch [Institute], reported Palmisano. This position should be increasingly cultivated and capitalized on (monetized)."
"While closely associated with both Bush Administrations, Lay was ideologically closer to another political figure on the issue of climate change. In Earth in the Balance, Senator Al Gore stated: Higher taxes on fossil fuels is one of the logical first steps in changing our policies in a manner consistent with a more responsible approach to the environment, stated Lay. I agree."
http://www.master...-moment/
Howhot
5 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2012
And don't forget that Eron was a big promoter of the Kyoto Treaty.


And don't forget we've got a global warming crisis in 50 years or less from Science. We are not talking about stupid Enron conspiracy crap. This is real full blown global warming.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2012
" The climate-change industry the scientists, lawyers, consultants, lobbyists and, most importantly, the multinationals that work behind the scenes to cash in on the riches at stake has emerged as the worlds largest industry. Virtually every resident in the developed world feels the bite of this industry which increases the costs of various goods and services. "
"Between 1994 and 1996, the Enron Foundation donated $1-million to the Nature Conservancy and its Climate Change Project, a leading force for global warming reform, while [Chairman Kenneth] Lay and other individuals associated with Enron donated $1.5-million to environmental groups seeking international controls on carbon dioxide."
"energy companies are attempting to continue providing energy to consumers. Companies on the other side are merely attempting to create a financial opportunity for themselves as financial parasites who provide nothing to anyone and get rich in return."
http://my.telegra...onmclucu
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2012
And don't forget that Eron was a big promoter of the Kyoto Treaty.


And don't forget we've got a global warming crisis in 50 years or less from Science. We are not talking about stupid Enron conspiracy crap. This is real full blown global warming.

How does it feel to support crony 'capitalists'? It does make sense as that is just another form of socialism called fascism. Wasn't it you Hottie that suggested those who don't agree with you should be sent to re-education camps?
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2012
You know what R2? It doesn't matter who said what back then. Lay was a skunk. Al Gore (A good guy IMHO) was political as politicians do. It doesn't matter. Gore was right and he was influential in motivating many law to be passed.

That was the past. What we now know about the atmospheric science is 1000s of times better then we knew back then. It all points to this conclusion; fossil fuel use is going to cause global extinctions.

And yea, we send our kids to camps all of the time. Perhaps it your turn R2 for a little rethink on atmospheric science.
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2012
So basically RyggTard's assumptions and basis for arguments are all fallacies of the first order. So to put it kindly, R2 is just full of it. Well if R2 burns it for his Hummer, at least he's carbon-neutral :) Ouch.
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2012
Thanks for the reminder Vendy. I forgot how much a POS Enron was .
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 08, 2012
Thanks for the reminder Vendy. I forgot how much a POS Enron was .

How convenient for AGWites. Control the press and the science journals and they control the story.
Very socialistic.
This is why blogs like ClimateAudit started documenting how climate data is selectively reported and how the journals limit real peer review.
When forced by Congress, even the NAS had to acknowledge such failures.
AGWism is a religion and Hottie is one of its most faithful.
NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2012
The LIA was regional and reduced the global average temperature by about 0.2'C


"Jørgen Peder Steffensen is an Associate Professor at the University of Copenhagen and one of the worlds leading experts on ice cores.

Using ice cores from sites in Greenland, he has been able to reconstruct temperatures there for the last 10000 years. So what are his conclusions?

Temperatures in Greenland were about 1.5 C warmer 1000 years ago than now.

It was perhaps 2.5 C warmer 4000 years ago.

The period around 1875, at the lowest point of the Little Ice Age, marked the coldest point in the last 10,000 years.

Other evidence from elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere confirms this picture."

http://notalotofp...0-years/
NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2012
The LIA was regional and reduced the global average temperature by about 0.2'C


Ha ha ha ha.

HADCRUT3 has 2011 .2C below 1998. Is it noticeable?

Would a sane person call a .2C drop a "Little Ice Age"?

You are deranged.

"The Little Ice Age (or LIA) refers to a period between 1350 and 1900 when temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were between 1.0 and 2.0°C cooler than at present. A NASA website that provides details on current research reports that "during the Little Ice Age, access to Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s. At the same time, canals in Holland routinely froze solid, glaciers advanced in the Alps, and sea-ice increased so much that no open water was present in any direction around Iceland in 1695."

http://www.ncdc.n...000.html
NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2012
The LIA was regional and reduced the global average temperature by about 0.2'C


Even the IPCC suggest otherwise.

"1°C relative to late 20th century"

"1 to 2°C below normal during the late 17th century"

"the coldest decades for the North American continent were closer to 1.5°C colder "

http://www.ipcc.c.../070.htm

And we know the IPCC underplays anything that detracts from their delusional CO2 theory.
NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2012
HADCET is the longest temperature record.

These are the 5 coldest Winters

rank DJF
1 -1.17 1684
2 -0.40 1740
3 -0.33 1963
4 0.43 1814
5 0.47 1795

The Winter of 2007 was 7.5C warmer than 1684.

http://www.metoff...sort.txt

NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2012
"Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth


Really? Their own evidence shows the whole northern hemisphere warmed and cooled.

Just because the southern hemisphere is not perfectly in synch proves nothing. There is much less land mass in the SH.

Even today Antarctic Sea Ice is above normal while Arctic Sea is below.

7.5C difference is a lot. The LIA was COLD.
NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2012
"Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth


Japan

"At about 1360, however, they say the warm-climate species "decreased, suggesting cooler climatic conditions," which point in time is noted by them as corresponding to "the beginning of the Little Ice Age as generally recognized in Japan (Sakaguchi, 1995)."

During this multi-century global cool spell, Kitagawa et al. report that "serious famines frequently occurred because of adverse climatic conditions," three of which were especially serious. Quoting them again, "both the Kyoho famine in 1732 and the Tenmei famine (1782-1787) resulted in population decreases of about one million, and during the Tenpo famine (1823-1839) the population declined by ca. 290,000 (Nakajima, 1976).""

http://www.co2sci...6/C2.php
NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2012
HADCET is the longest temperature record.


5 coldest summers

1 13.10 1725
2 13.17 1695
3 13.37 1816
4 13.47 1860
5 13.60 1823

4C colder than today.
NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2012
"1) In New Zealand the Franz Joseph glacier was a mere pocket of ice on a frozen snowfield nine centuries ago. Then Little Ice Age cooling began and the glacier thrust downslope into the valley below smashing into the great rain forests that flourished there, felling giant trees like matchsticks. By the early 18th Century, Franz Josephs face was within 3 km of the Pacific Ocean .

The high tide of glacial advance at Franz Joseph came between the late 17th Century and early 19th Century, just as it did in the European Alps.

2) Glaciers in the European Alps advanced significantly around 1600 to 1610, again from 1690 to 1700, in the 1770s and around 1820 and 1850.

3) Ice sheets in Alaska, the Canadian Rockies and Mount Rainier in the NW United States moved forward simultaneously.

4) ... 19th Century in the Caucasus, the Himalayas and China."

http://notalotofp...ice-age/
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2012
VD ... where did the LIA not occur. Give me a list of 10 regions with references.

I'll demolish them
NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2012
Antarctic Sea Ice above normal

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png
NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2012
the world's glaciers and ice caps had lost ... about 39 cubic miles of ice annually from 2003 to 2010.


Currently there are about 30,000,000 cubic kilometers of ice in the world's icecaps and glaciers.

39 cu miles = 162 cubic km.

Only 185,000 years to go ...

If you ignore the fact that the ice sheet in Greenland was growing up until 2003. http://www.esa.in...t_0.html
NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2012
HADCET is the longest temperature record.


5 coldest Fall's

7.50 1676
7.50 1786
7.53 1740
7.67 1675
7.67 1688

5C colder than today.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2012
HADCET is the longest temperature record.


Coldest January 1795 averaged -3.1C

10.1C colder than 2007

http://www.metoff...sort.txt
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 08, 2012
VD claims ... that the world's glaciers and ice caps had lost about 148 billion tons, or about 39 cubic miles of ice annually from 2003 to 2010.


Aside from the fact it will take 185,000 years to melt ... if the next ice age never arrives ...

"The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall."

http://www.guardi...ountains
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2012
Come now VD. Don't be bitter. 185,000 years will be over in the blink of an eye.

Except for the massive ice sheets that are due any time now as the Holocene ends.

What you forget is that ice has been melting (except during the LIA) for at least 11,000 years.

When it stops, the Holocene is over.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2012
I've shown you that winters in the LIA were 10C colder in Europe after you stupidly asserted the LIA was only .2C colder.

I asked you for 10 regions where the LIA never occurred.

I offered evidence for Japan and North America and New Zealand and Asia.

I'm still waiting ....
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2012
VD. 10 regions where the LIA did not occur?
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (13) Feb 08, 2012
Well, NP, if you're going to insist on using localized data only, why not the temperature inside your own anus?

And, while you're there, give us updates on moisture and methane levels as well.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2012
Well if the LIA really was regional, why does every other region also have an LIA? Does it matter if there were 100 regional LIA's at almost the same time?

Anyway, I keep asking VD and his other STD buddies to give an examples of 10 regions without any evidence of an LIA.

But they don't have any.

NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 08, 2012
LIA Europe? Yes.
LIA: New Zealand? Yes.
LIA: USA? Yes.
LIA: Asia: Yes.

LIA Canada? Yes
MWP: Canada: Yes

"Melting icefields on Baffin Island, one of the clearest signs of climate change on Earth today, have yielded the strongest evidence yet for the timing and cause of another major climate event from the planet's past: the so-called Little Ice Age, a sudden and mysterious cooling of the globe that began about 700 years ago.

Recently exposed remains of plants that had been buried under Baffin Island ice for centuries provided the crucial clue that has led an international team of researchers to conclude the Little Ice Age was triggered by volcanic eruptions between AD 1275 and 1300 and was sustained by changes in Arctic sea-ice cover that lasted several centuries."

http://www.canada...Evidence cause Little found Canada North/6073447/story.html
NotParker
1 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2012
NotParker
1 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2012
Chile? Yes.

"The major contribution provided by the documentary evidence has been to confirm the occurrence of a cold period in the Laguna San Rafael area, which would be within the temporal window defined for the European LIA. Furthermore, they conclude that the sole historical evidence suggests that warm conditions prevailed around 1675, a date in which the front of the San Rafael glacier did not extend beyond the eastern shoreline of the lake. Later, a cooling period occurred from 1766 to 1898, with a peak between 1857 and 1871, during which the glacier advanced up to 8 km into the interior of the Laguna San Rafael. This cooling period declined after 1898, as evidenced by the decrease of the San Rafael glacier, which had retreated 1 km by 1904.

http://www.worldc...america/
NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2012
You don't seem capable of comprehending that Europe is a region, not the globe.


Winters that are 10C colder in Europe ... the place with thermometers.

Maybe you have other thermometers that show otherwise? In other places.
NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2012
"Wahr says, according to his team's estimates, about 30 percent less ice is melting than previously thought."

http://www.usnews...-thought

Make that 250,000 years.
NotParker
1 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2012
Since the LIA was triggered by volcanic eruptions


Wait ... the globe spanning synchronous Little Ice Age occurred??????

I thought you were denying that right up until a few hours ago!!!!!!!

Wow. VD finally gives in on one of the most crucial points.

Since the globe spanning synchronous Little Ice Age DID OCCUR, then all proxies that do not show the globe spanning synchronous Little Ice Age are invalid.

IPCC DEAD!
NotParker
1 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2012
For decades you denialist morons have been claiming that the LIA was all due to sunspots.


"Without fully discounting the influence of the solar radiation cycle on the medieval cooling trend ..."

Ahhh. Volcanoes Solar change = LIA. Sounds quite reasonable.

"we can conclude that multi-decadal average summer temperatures never returned to those of Medieval times until the 20th century,"

So the MWP was just as warm as today. Then the LIA occurred all around the globe and cooled off the planet and all warming since the globally synchronous Little Ice Age was just the planet returning to normal.

Nice theory VD. I win.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 09, 2012
... Little Ice Age was just the planet returning to normal.

A naked assertion.

You lose. :lol:
NotParker
1 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2012
For decades you denialist morons have been claiming that the LIA was all due to sunspots.


"Without fully discounting the influence of the solar radiation cycle on the medieval cooling trend ..."

Ahhh. Volcanoes Solar change = LIA. Sounds quite reasonable.

"we can conclude that multi-decadal average summer temperatures never returned to those of Medieval times until the 20th century,"

So the MWP was just as warm as today. Then the LIA occurred all around the globe and cooled off the planet and all warming since the globally synchronous Little Ice Age was just the planet returning to normal.

Nice theory VD. I win.


I win. Again.
NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2012
VD "Yup, and it lowered global average temperatures by about 0.2'C"

"Without fully discounting the influence of the solar radiation cycle on the medieval cooling trend, the researchers found, however, clear indications on Baffin Island that mosses and other plants that had thrived in the centuries prior to AD 1300 were suddenly killed during a time marked by cataclysmic discharges from volcanoes erupting in the Southern Hemisphere.

A similar series of tropical volcanic eruptions around the year AD 1450 which initially blocked sunlight but also extended Arctic ice cover and increased iceberg production in the North Atlantic coincided with another pulse of icefield growth and the flash-freeze killing of plants at different locations on the Nunavut island."

Since when does a .2C drop cause the flash-freeze killing of plants.

I win for supplying facts.

VD wins for dumbest comment ever.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (15) Feb 09, 2012
No, you idiot; you win for presenting half-facts and naked assertions.

Not that I'd expect you to understand what either are. :rolleyes:
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (15) Feb 09, 2012
NASA Finds 2011 Ninth-Warmest Year on Record

The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000


http://www.biolog...012.html
NotParker
1 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2012
NASA Finds 2011 Ninth-Warmest Year on Record


Ninth ... Brrrr. Its getting colder.

I mean whoa ... 2011 is a whole .3C warmer than 70 years ago.

Why that means according to VD the 1930s and 40s were practically capable of flash freezing plant life!
NotParker
1 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2012
No, you idiot; you win for presenting half-facts and naked assertions.

Not that I'd expect you to understand what either are. :rolleyes:


I win. VD can't insult his way out of being so stupid he thinks a .2C drop in temperatures can flash freeze plant life!!

HA ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!
deepsand
3 / 5 (16) Feb 09, 2012
Puerile rejoiners do not constitute rational discourse.
NotParker
1 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2012
Did you know that using HADCRUT3, the global temperature anomaly for January 1943 was .24C and January 2011 it was .194

Thats right ... January 1943 was warmer than January 2011.

http://www.cru.ue...t3gl.txt

68 years later ... it was colder.
NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2012
Puerile rejoiners do not constitute rational discourse.


I think when VD claims that the LIA was .2C colder and reputable scientists describe the drop in temperature as being so cold it could flash freeze plants, VD deserves to be laughed at.
NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2012
Did you know that using HADCRUT3, the global temperature anomaly for January 1943 was .24C and January 2011 it was .194

Thats right ... January 1943 was warmer than January 2011.

http://www.cru.ue...t3gl.txt

68 years later ... it was colder.


Ooops. 1944. 67 years later.

January 1942 was also warmer than January 2011.
NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2012
Did you know that using HADCRUT3 the following January's were warmer than January 2008:

1863
1878
1932
1942
1944
1952
1958
1973
1980
1981
1983
1984
1986
1987
1988
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2009
2010
2011
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (15) Feb 10, 2012
VD can't insult his way out of being so stupid he thinks a .2C drop in temperatures can flash freeze plant life!

It is you who are stupid for thinking we are all so blind as to not see when and how you deliberately misrepresent what others have presented, or how you engage in selective winnowing of facts so as to conveniently ignore those that rebut your claims.

Now, rebut the NASA data just presented, if you can.

RealScience
4 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2012
... when VD claims that the LIA was .2C colder and reputable scientists describe the drop in temperature as being so cold it could flash freeze plants, VD deserves to be laughed at.

@NP - You take things out of context or misinterpret things, and from how frequently and repeatedly you do it I suspect that it is deliberate.

For example, here VD clearly states that the GLOBAL impact on CLIMATE (decades) is 0.2C.
However flash-freezing of plants is a SHORT-TERM impact found in areas not too far from the eruptions.
A big eruption that blocked sunlight for weeks in the arctic could easily flash-freeze plants (by directly lowering the temperature or by shifting weather patterns to bring in colder air), and yet after the tropospheric dust settled the GLOBAL MULTI-DECADAL impact of the stratospheric dust could be only 0.2 degrees.

So do you REALLY not understand the difference, or are you dishonest in pretending to not understand the difference?
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2012
VD clearly states that the GLOBAL impact on CLIMATE (decades) is 0.2C.


And offers nothing as proof.

I offerred actual thermometer data that shows some winters were 7C colder during the LIA.

How could anyone in their right mind suggest .2C could cause a Little Ice Age is beyond me.

.2C is about the average difference in temperature from Aug 15th to August 18th in the UK. Totally unnoticeable.

I would say arguing that .2C would cause a mini ice age is about the stupidest thing VD and his fellow STD's ever said ... which is quite amazing.

NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2012
Further one month cherry picked from a single year is not climate. It is statistically insignificant weather.


Aha. .2C is statistically insignificant weather ... but it can also cause a mini ice age?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2012
"Thats right ... January 1943 was warmer than January 2011." - ParkerTard

Once again Parker Tard's own reference doesn't agree with his claim.

Year J F M A M
1942 0.215 -0.084 -0.052 -0.072 0.026
1944 0.240 0.111 0.109 -0.011 0.049

2011 0.194 0.259 0.322 0.407 0.329

Further one month cherry picked from a single year is not climate. It is statistically insignificant weather.


As I corrected later, 1942 and 1944 January were warmer than 2011.

Interesting isn't it that the difference between 1942/1944 and 2011 is "statistically insignificant weather" in VD's demented little mind, but he also claims .2C for the LIA is enough to flash freeze plants.
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2012
"Thats right ... January 1942 and 44 were warmer than January 2011."


Did you know January temperatures in the UK varied by 8C over the last 100 years?

The warmest was 1916
http://i41.tinypi...77fd.jpg

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.