Global Climate Change Science News

[Brian Peacock]

Fossil fuel cartel deception.

[mistermack]

Arctic disaster is still taking it's time :


The current ice extent is slightly less than the median. Big deal. It's hard to make out the difference.
I recall the dire predictions ten years ago that the arctic was going to be ice-free in the summers.
I said then that it was bollocks.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

This is what they say about 2014 :

Arctic sea ice extent remained about a standard deviation below average for the month of December. Compared to recent years, 2014 as a whole was rather unremarkable. The bigger story was the record high extents observed in the Antarctic through more than half of the year. At year’s end, Antarctic sea ice extent was again at a record high, but poised for a rapid decline as the austral summer wears on.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2015/ ... mber-ends/
In summary, the overall world sea-ice picture is actually rather healthy.

[Tero]

30 years is actually almost nothing in climate

Summers in the Arctic may be ice-free in as few as 30 years, not at the end of the century as previously expected.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories200 ... eaice.html

[mistermack]

30 years is actually almost nothing in climate

Summers in the Arctic may be ice-free in as few as 30 years, not at the end of the century as previously expected.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories200 ... eaice.html

You'll have to work hard to find a climate scientist who was claiming that it would be the end of the century. If they said that, they would probably be branded a skeptic.
I was reading plenty of predictions of an ice-free arctic by 2010, back at the turn of the century.

Also, the phrase ''may be'' can be applied to anything you care to write. It's meaningless.

[Seth]

And the point of the article is that sunspot activity is an indicator of solar output, not a measure thereof, and it theorizes that we may be going into a Maunder Minimum period of solar sunspot activity which may correlate with a (tiny but significant) decrease in solar output, which in the past has lead to global cooling.

Like I posted before, it's worthless, apart from the academic interest.

It's only worthless to you because it doesn't jibe with your expectations.

Tell me about a model that will predict horse race results, and I'm not going to put my money on it till it makes a real successful prediction.
A prediction of the future, not of the past.

When a phenomenon occurs in a long-term historically repeating pattern, it's hardly "worthless" to state that a mechanism for causing that pattern identified through scientific research is likely to reoccur in the future and that this reoccurence is likely to cause the pattern to reoccur.

Can this predict accurately sunspot activity? Nobody knows.
Would that sunspot lack of activity cool the climate? Nobody knows.

It's as useful as the rest of climate science.

Well, I think it's pretty obvious that a decrease or increase in solar energy output will cause changes in temperature on planets that receive this energy since it's well proven that solar energy is the dominant energy input to the planetary surface and the less there is of it, the colder the temperature of the planet's surface. That's clearly and objectively provable based on relatively simple scientific measurements of solar energy at different distances from the sun.

Thus, the core fact, which is indisputable, is that less solar output results in less energy input to the planet and therefore lower temperatures.

The question of how much variation there is and how and when such variations occur is rather more complex it is true. Since it's impossible to "predict" if the sun is going to change its energy output from one second to the next, it's impossible to "predict" the exact effect of future events on earth's actual temperature and therefore climate.

However, having identified a link between sunspot activity, solar output, insolation and historical global climate temperature records it's hardly "useless" to suggest that if the sun enters a Maunder Minimum cycle, global temperatures might decrease in a manner and degree similar to previous events of the same kind.

How useful is this in predicting accurate global temperature changes? Not very. But then again, as you suggest, it's no less accurate than the current predictions of anthropogenic global warming, which have departed radically from the predictions in the last 18 years.

The point is to suggest that the hysteria over AGW is overwrought and the "science" behind those predictions is not credible and to suggest that factors other than human-generated CO2 have a much more important effect on global temperatures and therefore it is rational and prudent to not overreact and waste trillions of dollars trying to solve a "problem" that doesn't actually exist as some sort of immediately necessary emergency measure to stave off extinction of all life on earth.

If that's the fear, we'd be far better off funding space observation and asteroid redirection efforts because we know for a fact that one relatively small asteroid impact has the potential to wipe out all life on earth and we may have only a matter of months, weeks, days or hours to respond effectively to such a threat.

AGW is, if it even exists at all, a long-term issue that can be solved (if needed) with long-term efforts that can take plenty of time to plan and implement in ways that aren't so obviously predicated on inducing panic and hysteria in the populace so that the powers that be can use that panic as a method of increasing political and social control of the population for reasons having nothing whatever to do with the actuality of any AGW "threat."

[mistermack]

Well, I think it's pretty obvious that a decrease or increase in solar energy output will cause changes in temperature on planets that receive this energy since it's well proven that solar energy is the dominant energy input to the planetary surface and the less there is of it, the colder the temperature of the planet's surface. That's clearly and objectively provable based on relatively simple scientific measurements of solar energy at different distances from the sun.

Thus, the core fact, which is indisputable, is that less solar output results in less energy input to the planet and therefore lower temperatures.

Well, if you'd paid attention, you could read off the graph that Tero posted, that total solar output varies at the most by one part in a thousand. Even at periods of max or min sunspot activity.
You try turning down your home heating by one thousandth, and get back to me with what happens.

[Seth]

Well, I think it's pretty obvious that a decrease or increase in solar energy output will cause changes in temperature on planets that receive this energy since it's well proven that solar energy is the dominant energy input to the planetary surface and the less there is of it, the colder the temperature of the planet's surface. That's clearly and objectively provable based on relatively simple scientific measurements of solar energy at different distances from the sun.

Thus, the core fact, which is indisputable, is that less solar output results in less energy input to the planet and therefore lower temperatures.

Well, if you'd paid attention, you could read off the graph that Tero posted, that total solar output varies at the most by one part in a thousand. Even at periods of max or min sunspot activity.
You try turning down your home heating by one thousandth, and get back to me with what happens.

Non sequitur. Your home heat is hardly the same thing, or magnitude, as the sun, where a variation of one part in a thousand is perfectly capable of affecting the climate here on earth, according to the scientists who actually know about such things.

[mistermack]

Non sequitur. Your home heat is hardly the same thing, or magnitude, as the sun, where a variation of one part in a thousand is perfectly capable of affecting the climate here on earth, according to the scientists who actually know about such things.

Affecting it yeh.

By a thousandth.
Or actually less than that. Because a drop in irradiance onto the Earth, means a drop in radiated heat AWAY from the Earth.

[Seth]

Non sequitur. Your home heat is hardly the same thing, or magnitude, as the sun, where a variation of one part in a thousand is perfectly capable of affecting the climate here on earth, according to the scientists who actually know about such things.

Affecting it yeh.

By a thousandth.
Or actually less than that. Because a drop in irradiance onto the Earth, means a drop in radiated heat AWAY from the Earth.

Eventually, yes, but you forget thermal mass reaction delay. You also forget that less heat radiated away from earth is the result of less heat in the thermal mass to be radiated, which means that the thermal mass is cooler, which has dire effects on the environment. Like two-mile-thick ice sheets.

[mistermack]

Eventually, yes, but you forget thermal mass reaction delay. You also forget that less heat radiated away from earth is the result of less heat in the thermal mass to be radiated, which means that the thermal mass is cooler, which has dire effects on the environment. Like two-mile-thick ice sheets.

There's just one flaw in this bollocks you are offering. It's bollocks.

It is estimated that the Sun has become 30% brighter in the last 4.5 billion years.[113] At present, it is increasing in brightness by about 1% every 100 million years.[114]

According to your wisdom, the Earth would have been a frozen block of ice, up to about ten million years ago.
Actually no, it would still be frozen, because of the albedo of the snow cover over the entire planet.

[Tero]

Denialist claims stopping coal hurts POOR people!

Einstein's brain: "...affordable coal."

Frisco: THERE IS NO SUCH THING, Eb.

enjoy
http://www.amazon.com/forum/science/ref ... 0ZXLCAT00G

Amazon discussions will disappear, anytime now. They have been blocking a lot of stuff to keep out new members posting.

[Seth]

Denialist claims stopping coal hurts POOR people!

Einstein's brain: "...affordable coal."

Frisco: THERE IS NO SUCH THING, Eb.

enjoy
http://www.amazon.com/forum/science/ref ... 0ZXLCAT00G

Amazon discussions will disappear, anytime now. They have been blocking a lot of stuff to keep out new members posting.

Yup. If you refuse to toe the Warmist party line you will be excluded, marginalized, insulted and ultimately liquidated as counterrevolutionary traitors. Classic Marxism.

[Brian Peacock]

Who's blocking whom on Amazon?

[Tero]

Who's blocking whom on Amazon?

They refuse to connect discussions to products and forums to forums. They are just leaving discussions going for some weeks, months, before deleting all. Enough for members to exchange e mails and regroup elsewhere.

[macdoc]

Yup. If you refuse to toe the Warmist party line you will be excluded, marginalized, insulted

deservedly so for peddling factually untrue crap....you should know about that.