Solar Cycle 24 has started - what will it mean for global temps?

Also another tactic of the obfuscation camp. In the evolution "debate" lists were made by the discovery institute that included the names of "scientists" that doubt evolution is real. It included some dentists, nurses, surgeons, etc., who might be very intelligent but hardly experts in the field. The biologists, demonstrating a very good sense of humor, responded by compiling a larger list of scientists that knew evolution was truth. The only requirement was that your name was "Steve". In honor of the late Stephen Jay Gould

There will always be a few contrarians about anything. Its the consensus that should be used to plan action.

 

LOL, I like you Tim.

I would be inclined to agree that CO2 is not the predominant cause of climate change. I don't think that the real science is pushing that idea. They do, however, feel that is amplifies climate change, same with methane. Since there is very little argument there I don't see the problem with cutting back on emissions. Especially since there are a number of positive feedback loops in the making like lack of sequestration and GHG release (permafrost, ice lakes, oceanic outgassing or reduced uptake) we must act in a cautionary manner.

 

Yes, *if sustained over many decades*. The Solar cycle is 11 years (or 22, if you want to be picky). Five years from you should be asking us how much the Earth will cool because the Solar cycle is half over, and then five years later again asking how much it will warm... There is no evidence that the Solar output has, or will, measureably increase for times on the order of millions of years. (Of course long term the Sun will get brighter as it ages, as do all main sequence stars with similar mass; the seas will boil because of that in about billion and a half years.)

 

Yeah, we can still be friends.

I did finish the paper but it was a simple review and not a real research paper. I ended up rushing it (you know how finals week goes) and thus I am not happy with the calrity of the information so I am going to clean it up a bit and give a bit more background. I thought the assignment was aimed at peers in the field, not peers in my class who do not understand oceanography so I ended up with a B on the paper because it was considered too esoteric (understandable because my knowledge on the subject is still limited and it is hard to describe accurately that wwhich you do not understand completely). Soooo I'm going to have one of my professors look at the paper and I'll clean it up and send it to you for a primer if you would like. Unfortunately a lot of the papers I cited are not available on the net. Do you have access to journals? If so I can PM you a list of good ones.

 

Do you have access to Science? The 14 DEC 07 Review "Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification" is fairly detailed.

 

i think global warming is natures thing

buth the reason i want less polution is because of cancer and cleaner longs!!

think about that and leave the environment... health thats what its about.

 

Actually that is what most environmentalists fight for too. Here is a great quote I am fond of:

"Then.... I thought I was trying to save the Amazon Rainforest. Now, I realize I am fighting for humanity - Chico Mendes (forest worker and environmental activist from Brazil. Assasinated in 1988 by a Rancher)

In the end, preserving the environment is a preservation of humanity and it's future welfare. There are abundant facts that support this.

 

wel ii think gloabl warming is giong to come anyway
but we speed things UP and thats what i do not like.

and i like to have clean longs!!

 

I hear ya man. I want us all the be healthy.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how often that point is lost on people. I think the term "save the environment" creates a seperation in peoples mind (a lot like our modern lifestyle has divorced us from the natural word in so many ways) and they fail to see the very important connexion.

 

I feel you are 100% correct Tripp. What is interesting is that not only is it (environmental resources and services) absolutely vital for our existance, it is the basis for our economy and any severe degradation of the environment has an effect on our future health and economy. This fact serves as incentive for the philanthropist and the greedy misanthrope.