Man Based Global Warming....

Global warmking has been caused by sun spots

The sun at the moment is on a "alert, no activity" from SOHO because there are no sunspots. The last couple of decades have seen the most sunspots ever recorded. The last time there were very few sunspots was during the Little Ice Age. If the cause of recent warming is the sun (and there's plenty of evidence if you choose to look) and not CO2, then we may discover the truth pretty soon if the sun remains relatively quiet

Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history' - Telegraph

 

No. Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

What the science says...

The correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.


As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun certainly has a strong influence on climate change. Consequently there have been many studies examining the link between solar variations and global temperatures.
The correlation between solar activity and temperature

The most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists from Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in the last 60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005). They also found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity.
However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to 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."

You read that right. The study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun can't be causing global warming. Ironically, the evidence that establishes the sun's close correlation with the Earth's temperature in the past also establishes it's blamelessness for global warming today.


Measurements of solar activity

This is confirmed by direct satellite measurements that find no rising trend since 1978, sunspot numbers which have leveled out since 1950, the Max Planck Institute reconstruction that shows irradience has been steady since 1950 and solar radio flux or flare activity which shows no rising trend over the past 30 years.

Other studies on solar influence on climate

This conclusion is confirmed by many studies quantifying the amount of solar influence in recent global warming:

• Solanki 2008 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".
  
• 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 concludes "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."
• 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"

 

Welcome to another d berman climate change thread, where ignorance is something to be proud of.

 

The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.

Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.

Elements of the astronomical theory of Ice Age causation were first presented by the French mathematician Joseph Adhemar in 1842, it was developed further by the English prodigy Joseph Croll in 1875, and the theory was established in its present form by the Czech mathematician Milutin Milankovich in the 1920s and 30s. In 1976 the prestigious journal “Science†published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled “Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,†which described the correlation which the trio of scientist/authors had found between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles. Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has remained the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate scientists, and hence the Milankovich theory is always described in textbooks of climatology and in encyclopaedia articles about the Ice Ages.

In their 1976 paper Imbrie, Hays, and Shackleton wrote that their own climate forecasts, which were based on sea-sediment cores and the Milankovich cycles, "… must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted... the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate."

During the 1970s the famous American astronomer Carl Sagan and other scientists began promoting the theory that ‘greenhouse gasses’ such as carbon dioxide, or CO2, produced by human industries could lead to catastrophic global warming. Since the 1970s the theory of ‘anthropogenic global warming’ (AGW) has gradually become accepted as fact by most of the academic establishment, and their acceptance of AGW has inspired a global movement to encourage governments to make pivotal changes to prevent the worsening of AGW.

The central piece of evidence that is cited in support of the AGW theory is the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph which was presented by Al Gore in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.†The ‘hockey stick’ graph shows an acute upward spike in global temperatures which began during the 1970s and continued through the winter of 2006/07. However, this warming trend was interrupted when the winter of 2007/8 delivered the deepest snow cover to the Northern Hemisphere since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001. It now appears that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures.

The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years -- evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.

In 1999 the British journal “Nature†published the results of data derived from glacial ice cores collected at the Russia ’s Vostok station in Antarctica during the 1990s. The Vostok ice core data includes a record of global atmospheric temperatures, atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and airborne particulates starting from 420,000 years ago and continuing through history up to our present time.

The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing. The Vostok data graph also shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years. What that indicates is that global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse. In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise.

The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global temperature is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. That is why carbonated beverages loose their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their ‘fizz’, which is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content. The earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice Age cycle, and as the oceans get warmer, they release increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Because the release of CO2 by the warming oceans lags behind the changes in the earth’s temperature, we should expect to see global CO2 levels continue to rise for another eight hundred years after the end of the earth’s current Interglacial warm period. We should already be eight hundred years into the coming Ice Age before global CO2 levels begin to drop in response to the increased chilling of the world’s oceans.

The Vostok ice core data graph reveals that global CO2 levels regularly rose and fell in a direct response to the natural cycle of Ice Age minimums and maximums during the past four hundred and twenty thousand years. Within that natural cycle, about every 110,000 years global temperatures, followed by global CO2 levels, have peaked at approximately the same levels which they are at today.

About 325,000 years ago, at the peak of a warm interglacial, global temperature and CO2 levels were higher than they are today. Today we are again at the peak, and near to the end, of a warm interglacial, and the earth is now due to enter the next Ice Age. If we are lucky, we may have a few years to prepare for it. The Ice Age will return, as it always has, in its regular and natural cycle, with or without any influence from the effects of AGW.

The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change. The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored.

Gregory F. Fegel

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age - Pravda.Ru

 

I wouldn't completely rule out the sun. The possible mechanisms by which it could influence global climate are not completely understood (sunspots being just one measure). In any case Scott, if you want to present the data in that way, you will prove your point. But if you aren't cherry picking your phrases, you will see that the conclusions are often more complex. For instance, from Scarfetta:

Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record

N. Scafetta
Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
B. J. West
Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA

We study the solar impact on 400 years of a global surface temperature record since 1600. This period includes the pre-industrial era (roughly 1600–1800 or 1600–1900), when negligible amount of anthropogenic-added climate forcing was present and the sun realistically was the only climate force affecting climate on a secular scale, and the industrial era (roughly since 1800–1900), when anthropogenic-added climate forcing has been present in some degree. We use a recent secular Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction (Moberg et al., 2005), three alternative total solar irradiance (TSI) proxy reconstructions (Lean et al., 1995; Lean, 2000; Wang et al., 2005) and a scale-by-scale transfer climate sensitivity model to solar changes (Scafetta and West, 2005, 2006). The phenomenological approach we propose is an alternative to the more traditional computer-based climate model approach, and yields results proven to be almost independent on the secular TSI proxy reconstruction used. We find good correspondence between global temperature and solar induced temperature curves during the pre-industrial period such as the cooling periods occurring during the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715) and the Dalton Minimum (1795–1825). The sun might have contributed approximately 50% of the observed global warming since 1900 (Scafetta and West, 2006). We briefly discuss the global cooling that occurred from the medieval maximum (≈1000–1100 AD) to the 17th century minimum.


So I find it quite plausible that changes in the sun may be significant factors in driving climate. But in fairness, I think the jury is still out.

 

All these points have been answered previously. Only difference is that the responses are based on published work.

A Few Things Ill Considered : How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic

 

Anyone else note the irony of folks who are complaining about 100 years being too short are trying to convince us that a few months is sufficient. :nono: We indeed are seeing an unusual sunspot cycle. Some folks actually predicted a substantial delay back in 2006 using a new model of the Sun's circulation.

What should concern you is that if we are in a solar minimum, yet temps are still elevated compared to the 1990's we are likely in for some real scorchers if the sunspot cycle resumes. :flame:

So, denialists, are you ready to state that the sunspot cycle won't resume (at least within a decade?) Not that I expect any consistency...y'all have a new pet theory every few hours.

 

I do find it delicious that Drudge Report is now promoting articles written by a 9/11-Truther (Mr. Fegel) for Pravda (Pravda!!) on climate science. Mr Fegel boasts climate science credentials as intimidating as graduation from Clackamass Community College and work as a registered nurse. But I will admit, while I find Mr. Fegel's other Pravda articles tiresome (Proxy war between India and Pakistan will benefit 'divide and conquer' agenda of the USA and Israel , Impeachment is not Enough, or Missionaries are Colonialists), I do think Pravda is a safe source to turn to for information about UFOs, horny female bigfoots, or that the soul exists before conception. I just wish they would catch up with BatBoy. I mean, what's he up to these days? Why doesn't he have a reality show yet?

If you want actual info on Vostok Ice Cores and climate, try RealClimate

 

Maybe a picture will help. Notice the trendline:

 

Um, maybe if you turn that graph upside down you'll get a cooling trend.

 

No, then you would have a warming trend. Do you understand which line is the trendline? (It is the straight one as I used a linear trend line)

There are multiple smaller scale trends within those 1800 years.

200 to 1000 is a warming trend
1000 to 1700 is a cooling trend
1700 to 2000 is a warming trend

However, from 200 to 2000 is a cooling trend. If the current warming trend continues then the 1800 year trend will go from cooling to flat to warming.

 

I see. Alric either can't read a graph or can't admit when he is wrong.

 

The irony here - you referencing to a blog - is unbelievable, since you tried to shoot down my link to surfacestations.org as "just a blog".

Of course, I also pointed out that the writer of the blog I referenced, Anthony Watts of surfacestations, is a meterologist who was invited to present by NCDC and also linked to a published paper agreeing with many of the same meteorological station measurement problems that Watts has pointed out.

The blog you reference is written by Coby Beck, [who] "is a software developer specializing in Artificial Intelligence applications."

Coby is entitled to his opinion of course, but your irony, Alric, is classic.

 

Somebody give Hinton a crash course in reading trends.

 

Please do.

 

Alric - it's not a "small correction" as you claim. A number of problems have arisen with Mann's latest work, just as with his previous work. The "hockey stick" is still broken:

Correlation Distribution Analysis shows that the hockeystick shape is entirely due to Tiljander proxies plus high-altitude southwestern US "stripbark" pines (bristlecones, foxtails, etc). When these are removed, the hockeystick shape disappears entirely.

It should be noted that strip bark â€bristlecone/foxtail pines (trees missing parts of their bark) are to be avoided during temperature reconstructions because their growth is exaggerated by the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Regarding the Tiljander sediments, Mann uses a series of data that the authors of the series themselves caution has been disturbed and is not a valid proxy for the last 200-300 years.

Mann also apparently inverts the whole series of data - so instead of showing it decreasing in the last 200 years he shows it increasing.

That this latest work of Mann's is what passes as "peer reviewed" these days is shameful.

 

Well for starters your chart refutes your own CO2 argument. :cheer2: You know what matches that recent uptrend...CO2 concentration.

So are you trying to prove global warming or what? :thumb:

 

Yes, the recent spike in temperature corresponds with the increase in CO2 over the last 100 years with a few exceptions. (1880-1900, 1950-1970, 2000-2008) Does the temperature decrease from 1000 to 1700 have a corresponding decrease in CO2?

As an engineer that has worked in manufacturing I would look at the temperature data from 0 to 2000 AD on a control chart. Is the process in control or out of control. To determine that I would need to establish upper and lower control limits. To do that I would need the actual data to calculate standard deviation. (UCL and LCL are usually set at 3 sigma) With that data we could determine if a 0.6 C increase in temperature in 100 years is statistically significant or part of normal variation.

Of course the global is not a manufacturing process. We know that the earth's temperatures has varied by ~6 C repeatedly in a pretty consistent pattern. I don't expect the global temperature to remain constant.