So maybe it's the Sun who is killing the Ice Caps?
Discussion
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnist...
In Brief;
This is an article detailing the possibility that that Sun is the main cause of all this Global Warming malarky...
Pretty sure its not a repost, just thought a few (Read - All) PH'ers might be interested in an item that looks to disprove the usual MMGW theories.
One point that I would like to make is that even if what is written in the article does turn out to be completely true, I have no doubt in my mind that we will still be taxed back to the dark ages in the name of 'Saving the Planet'!
You can't tax Natural Global Warming. (Except Labour, they probably could...)
In Brief;
This is an article detailing the possibility that that Sun is the main cause of all this Global Warming malarky...
Pretty sure its not a repost, just thought a few (Read - All) PH'ers might be interested in an item that looks to disprove the usual MMGW theories.
One point that I would like to make is that even if what is written in the article does turn out to be completely true, I have no doubt in my mind that we will still be taxed back to the dark ages in the name of 'Saving the Planet'!
You can't tax Natural Global Warming. (Except Labour, they probably could...)
A big ball of fire in the sky that melts things.....well I never, you learn something new everyday.
I saw the new bulls
t advert yesterday on TV, apparently we are in for flooding, heat waves and droughts......all bases covered then.
I saw the new bulls
t advert yesterday on TV, apparently we are in for flooding, heat waves and droughts......all bases covered then.Edited by Westy Pre-Lit on Tuesday 17th November 23:08
NismoGT said:
Not well informed enough on the subject. AFAIK the Magnetic field of the earth pulls the matter ejected by the sun toward the polar regions.
Surely this has to effect the ice cap?
Depends on how warm the matter is Surely this has to effect the ice cap?
Heat is radiation and not magnetic (if I remember my GCSE Physics correctly)
EDIT - My dad always says "I remember in the 70's they said we were heading for a new ice-age" well according to the article:
"In the past 12 months solar activity has fallen to levels unseen since the 1920s. Sunspots have become rare sights and for three quarters of this year the Sun has been spot-free. According to one study if the trend continues at its current rate, the Sun will lose its ability to produce sunspots by 2015. That would take it back to its condition in the latter 17th century, when hardly any sunspots appeared for 70 years — and Northern Europe underwent the worst years of the so-called Little Ice Age. "
ICE-TAX!
Edited by EDLT on Wednesday 18th November 00:27
AshVX220 said:
I'm getting a 404 on that website now, obviously as it doesn;t fit with the accepted view it's been pulled. Copenhagen is just round the corner and they can't have this sort of thing made public before the event can they?
ah but bless the internet - once it's out there it's there for good...article said:
A sharp drop in solar activity could soon tell us how much mankind and the Sun are responsible for warming the planet
Like it or not, it will soon be time to start placing bets for a white Christmas. If most climatologists are to be believed you are almost certainly throwing your money away.
The onward march of global warming is consigning such traditional Christmas card scenes to history. No more deep and crisp and even winters for Britain, replaced instead by damp and slush and stormy.
But, if a small group of maverick scientists are right, the chances of Yuletide snow may rise dramatically over the coming decades.
The difference of opinion hinges on what role — if any — the Sun plays in climate change. The vast majority of climate scientists maintain that the solar influence is limited or even negligible, and it is the unsustainable growth of industrialised nations that is driving the climate into chaos. The mavericks contend that the Sun’s activity dwarfs the human contribution, and that there is nothing we can do except wait for the Sun to change.
The public seems to agree with the mavericks. In a recent poll for The Times, only 41 per cent of UK voters thought the case for man-made global warning had been proved. Now, by a quirk of nature, the Sun has presented us with a golden opportunity to resolve this debate once and for all.
Satellite measurements for the past 30 years show that the Sun’s energy output has remained remarkably constant. What is changing is the level of solar activity. Solar activity governs the appearance of sunspots — dark blemishes on the solar surface. Sunspots form where magnetism reaches out from the Sun into space. In times of high solar activity, sunspots pockmark the solar surface for years and the Sun’s magnetic field balloons outwards to shield the Earth from deep space particles called cosmic rays.
According to the mavericks, cosmic rays induce clouds to form when they strike our atmosphere and low-level clouds are thought to reflect sunlight, cooling the Earth. So, when solar activity is high, the Earth is protected from cosmic rays and fewer clouds are formed. Thus, more sunlight reaches Earth’s surface and the planet heats up.
But how to prove this? During the 20th century, solar activity rose steadily, as did the amount of industrial gases being pumped into the atmosphere. With both quantities rising, it has been impossible to distinguish between them. Now, that has all changed.
In the past 12 months solar activity has fallen to levels unseen since the 1920s. Sunspots have become rare sights and for three quarters of this year the Sun has been spot-free. According to one study if the trend continues at its current rate, the Sun will lose its ability to produce sunspots by 2015. That would take it back to its condition in the latter 17th century, when hardly any sunspots appeared for 70 years — and Northern Europe underwent the worst years of the so-called Little Ice Age.
Winter scenes from this period were romanticised by artists such as Brueghel painting frost fairs and hunting scenes. But was the 17th century sunspot crash responsible for the Little Ice Age or a coincidence? Could we now find ourselves plunged into a similar freeze if the sunspots do not return?
The answer to the latter is, presumably, yes if the Sun is solely responsible for climate change; no if the mainstream is correct and solar influence is negligible. With this in mind, tonight in Bruges, I am chairing a public debate for the sixth annual European Space Weather Week between world authorities on solar variability who represent all sides of this discussion and have differing opinions about the Sun’s influence on climate. Topping the agenda is the sunspot crash and the opportunity that it presents. The plunging solar activity level will effectively remove the solar influence on climate change. If we are vigilant and honest about any slowdown in warming, its amount will tell us exactly how much the Sun was contributing.
The smart money is on the level of solar contribution being somewhere between the two extremes. In other words, both solar activity and industrial gases play a role. There is credible scientific work that ascribes up to a third of current warming to solar influence. Studies show that the Earth’s temperature mirrored solar activity until the 1980s. Then the number of sunspots stabilised but the temperature continued to rise. In other words, something overtook the Sun as the primary driver of the Earth’s temperature. That is generally thought to be industrial gases.
Now the test can be made. It is time for all sides to put away the rivalry and begin to work together. Observations must be made, experiments performed and all data must be published, not cherry-picked. This golden opportunity to reach consensus must not be squandered.
Above all, we must not let any downturn in temperatures be used as an excuse by reluctant nations to wriggle out of pollution controls. Just as certainly as the solar activity has gone away, so it will return. If we have done nothing in the interim to curb man-made global warming, we will be in worse trouble than ever.
Like it or not, it will soon be time to start placing bets for a white Christmas. If most climatologists are to be believed you are almost certainly throwing your money away.
The onward march of global warming is consigning such traditional Christmas card scenes to history. No more deep and crisp and even winters for Britain, replaced instead by damp and slush and stormy.
But, if a small group of maverick scientists are right, the chances of Yuletide snow may rise dramatically over the coming decades.
The difference of opinion hinges on what role — if any — the Sun plays in climate change. The vast majority of climate scientists maintain that the solar influence is limited or even negligible, and it is the unsustainable growth of industrialised nations that is driving the climate into chaos. The mavericks contend that the Sun’s activity dwarfs the human contribution, and that there is nothing we can do except wait for the Sun to change.
The public seems to agree with the mavericks. In a recent poll for The Times, only 41 per cent of UK voters thought the case for man-made global warning had been proved. Now, by a quirk of nature, the Sun has presented us with a golden opportunity to resolve this debate once and for all.
Satellite measurements for the past 30 years show that the Sun’s energy output has remained remarkably constant. What is changing is the level of solar activity. Solar activity governs the appearance of sunspots — dark blemishes on the solar surface. Sunspots form where magnetism reaches out from the Sun into space. In times of high solar activity, sunspots pockmark the solar surface for years and the Sun’s magnetic field balloons outwards to shield the Earth from deep space particles called cosmic rays.
According to the mavericks, cosmic rays induce clouds to form when they strike our atmosphere and low-level clouds are thought to reflect sunlight, cooling the Earth. So, when solar activity is high, the Earth is protected from cosmic rays and fewer clouds are formed. Thus, more sunlight reaches Earth’s surface and the planet heats up.
But how to prove this? During the 20th century, solar activity rose steadily, as did the amount of industrial gases being pumped into the atmosphere. With both quantities rising, it has been impossible to distinguish between them. Now, that has all changed.
In the past 12 months solar activity has fallen to levels unseen since the 1920s. Sunspots have become rare sights and for three quarters of this year the Sun has been spot-free. According to one study if the trend continues at its current rate, the Sun will lose its ability to produce sunspots by 2015. That would take it back to its condition in the latter 17th century, when hardly any sunspots appeared for 70 years — and Northern Europe underwent the worst years of the so-called Little Ice Age.
Winter scenes from this period were romanticised by artists such as Brueghel painting frost fairs and hunting scenes. But was the 17th century sunspot crash responsible for the Little Ice Age or a coincidence? Could we now find ourselves plunged into a similar freeze if the sunspots do not return?
The answer to the latter is, presumably, yes if the Sun is solely responsible for climate change; no if the mainstream is correct and solar influence is negligible. With this in mind, tonight in Bruges, I am chairing a public debate for the sixth annual European Space Weather Week between world authorities on solar variability who represent all sides of this discussion and have differing opinions about the Sun’s influence on climate. Topping the agenda is the sunspot crash and the opportunity that it presents. The plunging solar activity level will effectively remove the solar influence on climate change. If we are vigilant and honest about any slowdown in warming, its amount will tell us exactly how much the Sun was contributing.
The smart money is on the level of solar contribution being somewhere between the two extremes. In other words, both solar activity and industrial gases play a role. There is credible scientific work that ascribes up to a third of current warming to solar influence. Studies show that the Earth’s temperature mirrored solar activity until the 1980s. Then the number of sunspots stabilised but the temperature continued to rise. In other words, something overtook the Sun as the primary driver of the Earth’s temperature. That is generally thought to be industrial gases.
Now the test can be made. It is time for all sides to put away the rivalry and begin to work together. Observations must be made, experiments performed and all data must be published, not cherry-picked. This golden opportunity to reach consensus must not be squandered.
Above all, we must not let any downturn in temperatures be used as an excuse by reluctant nations to wriggle out of pollution controls. Just as certainly as the solar activity has gone away, so it will return. If we have done nothing in the interim to curb man-made global warming, we will be in worse trouble than ever.
Thankyou.
An interesting read, howevever, 3 things leapt off the screen at me.
1. Why are they Mavericks? Using the term Maverick immediately puts them in a negative light.
2. Stating tat the difference of opion "hinges on what role - if any - the sun" etc. This statement in bold implies that it's not the case, clearly it is, The Sun does play a role obviously, what they should say is to suggest how mush of a role. Not whether it plays any role or not.
3. Finally the last paragraph, it implies that we're doomed regardless and that even if the Sun is found to be responsible we're still in trouble. That the next time we see sun-spots we'll be in even bigger trouble because we'd have continued to make nasty, evil CO2 in the blind faith that MMGW no longer exists because it's all the Suns fault.
They're still telling us we should worship at the altar of green-ness.
An interesting read, howevever, 3 things leapt off the screen at me.
1. Why are they Mavericks? Using the term Maverick immediately puts them in a negative light.
2. Stating tat the difference of opion "hinges on what role - if any - the sun" etc. This statement in bold implies that it's not the case, clearly it is, The Sun does play a role obviously, what they should say is to suggest how mush of a role. Not whether it plays any role or not.
3. Finally the last paragraph, it implies that we're doomed regardless and that even if the Sun is found to be responsible we're still in trouble. That the next time we see sun-spots we'll be in even bigger trouble because we'd have continued to make nasty, evil CO2 in the blind faith that MMGW no longer exists because it's all the Suns fault.
They're still telling us we should worship at the altar of green-ness.
I might be stating the obvious here, but this is a no win situation for tax payers ..
Because if global warming continues, our glorious gubbermint will continue to argue for more and more taxes. If global warming subsides, they will argue that their taxes are having an effect... and continue to tax us to maintain the cooling…
Where is Guy Fawkes now that his country needs him ?
Because if global warming continues, our glorious gubbermint will continue to argue for more and more taxes. If global warming subsides, they will argue that their taxes are having an effect... and continue to tax us to maintain the cooling…
Where is Guy Fawkes now that his country needs him ?
In some regions the ice ISN'T melting. On the western sides of the North and South poles it has been growing. The south at a rate of 10,000sq/km per decade. But we don't like to talk about that because it ruins the story that we're all going to drown.
Edited by rhinochopig on Wednesday 18th November 10:45
The 'well I never - that big hot firey thing!' type comments are quite amusing. The theory is for an indirect effect of the sun on climate via the atmosphere (clouds) effecting the earth's ability to radiate heat away (sound familiar?), not for the amount of energy received from the 'big ball of fire' directly heating up/cooling the planet.
The comments should be 'well I never - an(other) atmospheric influence on earth's climate!'
The comments should be 'well I never - an(other) atmospheric influence on earth's climate!'
"Solar activity has shown little to no long term trend since the 1950's. Consequently, any correlation between sun and climate ended in the 1970's when the modern global warming trend began."
Ref:•Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."
•Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is −1.3% and the 2ó confidence level sets the uncertainty range of −0.7 to −1.9%."
•Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."
•Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
•Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
•Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
•Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
•Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
•Solanki 2004 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".
•Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
•Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
•Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970".
•Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970".
•Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
•Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade"
(www.skepticalscience.com)
Don't believe everything you read.
Ref:•Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."
•Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is −1.3% and the 2ó confidence level sets the uncertainty range of −0.7 to −1.9%."
•Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."
•Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
•Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
•Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
•Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
•Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
•Solanki 2004 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".
•Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
•Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
•Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970".
•Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970".
•Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
•Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade"
(www.skepticalscience.com)
Don't believe everything you read.
Guam said:
Quite so and definitely not from Blogs 
The ad-hominem (criticising the source of an argument rather than the content) is usually an indication of a pretty weak position. The P&P would be better off we gave such responses a miss. A lot of turbobolokes posts are from blogs, but that isn't a valid criticism of the skeptic arguments presented in them.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff