[eureka]

How would a grand solar minimum affect Global Warming?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphic ... n_1024.jpg

[PluggyRug]

eureka wrote:

Actually, it can be found on the Met site by looking for the temperature record. That is all the Met released. All the "spin" is by a knucle dragger hack employed by the Daily Mail.

It is fiction and nonsense.

I think, Bart, you are misreading the abstract you found. It says without reservation that AGW is the source, not the Sun.

"Past solar activity is used to estimate future changes in total solar irradiance
The impact on future global temperatures is estimated with a climate model
The Sun's influence is much smaller than future anthropogenic warming"

The Sun has been in a negative phase nor for some fifty years. What little effect it has had would cause a slight cooling. A cooling that has been overwhelming by anthropogenically caused warming.

Further, neither a Grand Maximum or a Grand Minimum would have any significant effect on temperature. The last Maunder Minimum just a couple of centuries ago did not send us into an Ice Age. In fact, the lowest Global mean in that time was barely .5C below the long term mean.

Sigh....as often stated before, all the above blather means naught when climate models are used as presentation for salient points.

[eureka]

PluggyRug wrote:

eureka wrote:

Actually, it can be found on the Met site by looking for the temperature record. That is all the Met released. All the "spin" is by a knucle dragger hack employed by the Daily Mail.

It is fiction and nonsense.

I think, Bart, you are misreading the abstract you found. It says without reservation that AGW is the source, not the Sun.

"Past solar activity is used to estimate future changes in total solar irradiance
The impact on future global temperatures is estimated with a climate model
The Sun's influence is much smaller than future anthropogenic warming"

The Sun has been in a negative phase nor for some fifty years. What little effect it has had would cause a slight cooling. A cooling that has been overwhelming by anthropogenically caused warming.

Further, neither a Grand Maximum or a Grand Minimum would have any significant effect on temperature. The last Maunder Minimum just a couple of centuries ago did not send us into an Ice Age. In fact, the lowest Global mean in that time was barely .5C below the long term mean.

Sigh....as often stated before, all the above blather means naught when climate models are used as presentation for salient points.

Which part do you think depends on models? And why would the models be wrong?

[eureka]

The UK Met Office has called out David Rose and the Mail for publishing a "wilfully misleading" story about global warming.

This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading
So all the hot air about the Dalton Minimum was a load of crap. Rose is just a science denier spinning a story to please his constituency.

“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”


http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012 ... uary-2012/

[eureka]

And then there is this by the economist the 16 "scientists" misrepresent.

Nordhaus:

"The piece completely misrepresented my work. My work has long taken the view that policies to slow global warming would have net economic benefits, in the trillion of dollars of present value. This is true going back to work in the early 1990s (MIT Press, Yale Press, Science, PNAS, among others). I have advocated a carbon tax for many years as the best way to attack the issue. I can only assume they either completely ignorant of the economics on the issue or are willfully misstating my findings."

There is much more that exposes them for what they are (I could give you an individual rundown on the fakes if you so desire).

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/ ... economics/

[sandorski]

I must be a Psychic or something?

Within a month this whole Thread will be repeated again...

[andyt]

Geez, Eureka, would you quit being so arrogant and posting all those links. You think you're so smart don't you? We'll you're a $#$$^%&^%^$#%#@$%$#^%&^%$&^%$ &%$&$%^%^%^#$%^#$%#$%$&%$^#$%@#%#^%^#$%#@$#$^#^% #&%$&^#^#$^#^#$%^$%&%$^#$^&#$%^#$^&#^&#$^$ for posting that.

[eureka]

Sorry, andy. I forgot the "Cider House" rules.

[BartSimpson]

sandorski wrote:

I must be a Psychic or something?

Within a month this whole Thread will be repeated again...

And, amazingly, a month or so from now it will probably be warmer where you live.

You'll call it 'global warming' and I'll just call it 'spring'.

[Bruce_E_T]

Quote:

“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”

Hmmm. So what actually? If you are looking at data that covers tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years a decade is nothing.

What we see in the present time frame may or may not have anything to do with anything.

[andyt]

But what if it does have something to do with something? What if all the carbon we've spewed in the air is raising the temp - a very reasonable assumption. Just keep looking back, why not millions of years and say meh?

[sandorski]

BartSimpson wrote:

sandorski wrote:

I must be a Psychic or something?

Within a month this whole Thread will be repeated again...

And, amazingly, a month or so from now it will probably be warmer where you live.

You'll call it 'global warming' and I'll just call it 'spring'.

[DrCaleb]

andyt wrote:

But what if it does have something to do with something? What if all the carbon we've spewed in the air is raising the temp - a very reasonable assumption. Just keep looking back, why not millions of years and say meh?

Millions of years ago, cold blooded animals were the dominant type.

For a reason.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb wrote:

Millions of years ago, cold blooded animals were the dominant type.

For a reason.

You mean because the world was about 15C warmer than it is now? You mean there were no glaciers? There were palm trees in Canada?

And, amazingly, it was like that for hundreds of millions of years and there was no industrial carbon output to sustain all of that.

And, naturally, the sun had nothing to do with that warmth.

[sandorski]

Ground Hog Day must be some peoples reality.