Is the World Ready for Another Ice Age? by Geoff Sharp

[Kevin Druff]

Your numbers and ideas are easily debunked by the mainstream scientific literature. Unless you don't accept the science endorsed by the NAS, AGU, AMS and all of academia across the world.

Don't you know. We're an empire. While you're busy debating "facts," they're busy changing them.

Wait. What?

What do you mean that doesn't work in science?

Oh, and one other thing. Deficits don't matter.

</snark>

I think that's the point of most AGW-deniers argumentation. If they can call into question enough of the science, they might win with the public at large. They're not trying to win a scientific argument. They're trying to win a political argument and you do that differently than a scientific argument.

Bethesda, when you finally come around to accepting that 1+1 = 2 and not 5, your arguments will make much more sense to the scientific community.

[BethesdaWX]

Bethesda,

Can you read? My first sentence agreed with your assertion that solar impacted periods of climate variability you mentioned. Don't be so inclined to disagree with me that you totally miscomprehend what I say.

You are just plain wrong about the history of CO2 concentrations. Your numbers are not those from the main stream scientific literature.

Since the onset of the satellite era, the energy received at Earth from the Sun as measured by those satellites has slightly and steadily declined over the past 30 years.

Your numbers and ideas are easily debunked by the mainstream scientific literature. Unless you don't accept the science endorsed by the NAS, AGU, AMS and all of academia across the world.

Alot of error here.

Woa Woa Woa... So, you agree that solar was the cause of the RWP, MWP & LIA? Ok.....you know that solar was around the SAME in the modern max, if not Higher this time......right??? So, why is solar only cause for part of the warming "now", however, it was cause for the whole chalk-full back in the RWP, MWP, etc? The RWP was double our current WP, & the MWP was at least as warm as our current WP.

Now, here you begn with the bullsh*t again. The whole "mainstream community"...LOLZ.... the IPCC report was only worked on by 52 scientists, scientists that don't even know how much land is above sea level! And, grabbing non-reviewed articles out of magazines & using it as proof....Himialyan Glaciers, AmazonGate....Bah, a load of crap.....there is no consensus my friend. Recently, over 5000 scientists, including former IPCC workers, rebelled against the "conensus"....that never was. Maybe there is a consensus in the IPCC, if thats what you mean. Gore was sued by over 30,000 scientists for Fraud....what does that tell ya about "consensus" outside of big Gov't?

3), This is your worst blunder. "Solar has been cooling for 30yrs"....No proof.....& yet, amazing correlation between the two. See images.

The solar cycle is no Lie Buddy......

Wow, thats a good match, eh?

This from NCDC

The 1970's Dip, the overall increase....wow. Knowing that Solar Created the RWP, MWP, & LIA, this is no surprise.

Look How High the Solar was in 1980-2000 & later! Crazzzzy

[WeatherRusty]

Alot of error here.

Woa Woa Woa... So, you agree that solar was the cause of the RWP, MWP & LIA? Ok.....you know that solar was around the SAME in the modern max, if not Higher this time......right??? So, why is solar only cause for part of the warming "now", however, it was cause for the whole chalk-full back in the RWP, MWP, etc? The RWP was double our current WP, & the MWP was at least as warm as our current WP.

Now, here you begn with the bullsh*t again. The whole "mainstream community"...LOLZ.... the IPCC report was only worked on by 52 scientists, scientists that don't even know how much land is above sea level! And, grabbing non-reviewed articles out of magazines & using it as proof....Himialyan Glaciers, AmazonGate....Bah, a load of crap.....there is no consensus my friend. Recently, over 5000 scientists, including former IPCC workers, rebelled against the "conensus"....that never was. Maybe there is a consensus in the IPCC, if thats what you mean. Gore was sued by over 30,000 scientists for Fraud....what does that tell ya about "consensus" outside of big Gov't?

3), This is your worst blunder. "Solar has been cooling for 30yrs"....No proof.....& yet, amazing correlation between the two. See images.

The solar cycle is no Lie Buddy......

Wow, thats a good match, eh?

This from NCDC

The 1970's Dip, the overall increase....wow. Knowing that Solar Created the RWP, MWP, & LIA, this is no surprise.

Look How High the Solar was in 1980-2000 & later! Crazzzzy

Here is the actual satellite derived data for TSI. The trend, up or down is minuscule and can't account for the warming over this period of time.

Source Article

[BethesdaWX]

You just stated that you agree that The RWP, MWP, & LIA were solar caused. This Article is discounting the Sun, Yet... The solar forcing is similar now comapred to the Previous two WP,s (R & M)

The NCDC data that I posted Matches Perfectly......yet you cherrypick the individual OBS....which hides the true story in HOW MUCH observed energy was at the higher spectrum in the timeframe of each cycle.

So, Tell me why SC23 has been measured as the strongest, but yet yours doesn't? Because......the "scientific community" is in agreement with this fact....only both AGWers & Skeptics are often on the same page.

FYI, why measure each solar Min, when the peak climactic effects occur during the rise & Max? My Graphs Have the Decreasing Mins too, only the MAXes are rising,and the data is not cherry picked from 3 cycles.

This from NCDC

In fact, in looking at your second Graph, the Mins are INcreasing (#s 1-2)

Look carefully now

As you can see, our Lag time is still around 1 year left. Counting this recent minimum as evidence for Cooling NOW is crazy....the rest you can see the actual trend within the Mins counting out the last one.

They did a great Job making it look other wise, though.

[BethesdaWX]

Wait...PMOD composite?

[WeatherRusty]

You just stated that you agree that The RWP, MWP, & LIA were solar caused. This Article is discounting the Sun, Yet... The solar forcing is similar now comapred to the Previous two WP,s (R & M)

The NCDC data that I posted Matches Perfectly......yet you cherrypick the individual OBS....which hides the true story in HOW MUCH observed energy was at the higher spectrum in the timeframe of each cycle.

So, Tell me why SC23 has been measured as the strongest, but yet yours doesn't? Because......the "scientific community" is in agreement with this fact....only both AGWers & Skeptics are often on the same page.

FYI, why measure each solar Min, when the peak climactic effects occur during the rise & Max? My Graphs Have the Decreasing Mins too, only the MAXes are rising,and the data is not cherry picked from 3 cycles.

This from NCDC

In fact, in looking at your second Graph, the Mins are INcreasing (#s 1-2)

Look carefully now

As you can see, our Lag time is still around 1 year left. Counting this recent minimum as evidence for Cooling NOW is crazy....the rest you can see the actual trend within the Mins counting out the last one.

They did a great Job making it look other wise, though.

It's not cherry picking. It's the satellite data which begins in 1979.

Forcing is the change in received energy not it's current value. TSI has not changed significantly at all since 1979 and if any it has dropped slightly.

Good night.......

[BethesdaWX]

It's not cherry picking. It's the satellite data which begins in 1979.

Forcing is the change in received energy not it's current value. TSI has not changed significantly at all since 1979 and if any it has dropped slightly.

Good night.......

Again, take out the current Min which wont effect us for another yr, and you have an increasing Min in 1-2.........why measureMins anyway? You're supposed to Measure the Max. SC23 being historic by allmeans...yes, theres no doubt/

[skierinvermont]

Again, take out the current Min which wont effect us for another yr,

Wrong.. the strongest correlations occur at the minimum or slightly lag. We've had low solar activity for 5+ years now.. we should have felt its effects years ago.

[nzucker]

Wrong.. the strongest correlations occur at the minimum or slightly lag. We've had low solar activity for 5+ years now.. we should have felt its effects years ago.

How do you know this? Can you tell me what was the absolute minimum during the Dalton Minimum and what the global temperature change was? What was the lowest year for solar activity in the Maunder Minimum and its associated temperature change?

We haven't had a big solar minimum since 1810 so how can we possibly know these things? You just try to pretend all the science is settled when it clearly isn't.....

During the Maunder Minimum, there was a lag between the coldest conditions observed in England and the onset of the solar minimum. Obviously this doesn't prove much about global temperatures, but it's certainly true that our coldest winters could come 20-30 years after the onset of the minimum. For example, the Maunder is said to have begun in 1645, and yet the highest concentration of winters with the Thames River freezing was in the 1655-1666 period. Also, one of the coldest winters in both North America and Europe was 1708-09, long after the minimum's most intense period had ended. This makes sense logically....it would take time for reduced solar radiation and changes in cloud cover to affect global temperatures, especially if you consider albedo feedbacks like the growth of glaciers/arctic sea ice and snow cover which were observed during the Maunder Minimum, especially in the Alps. Why would the temperature change happen immediately when the 1850-2000 solar maximum took many years to cause such widespread warmth?

If the solar minimum continues, I'd expect the coldest global temperatures to occur in the 2020-2030 time frame, when the PDO is also at its most negative.

[ORH_wxman]

Studies are pretty ambiguous on the solar lag with global temps. Many say 2 years...other say 5-6 years. Most hedge toward the former and call it 3 years, but we have a lot of noise in there. There's a ton of problems with ocean cycles that hard to filter out and I think someone did a paper on this recently.

There's also studies being done on longer term lags...a series of lower/higher solar output tends to have a definite effect on global temps. But that stuff likely won't be published for another 3-5 years. The 60s-90s had exceptionally high solar output which might have enhanced the warming from 1975-2005 along with the already documented warm ocean cycles in that time frame.

[WeatherRusty]

If I could point out one very overlooked point when assessing the impact of solar variation on global temperatures...

Take a close look at the TSI graphics presented in the above arguments. You will notice that total TSI CHANGE is on the order of 0.3W/m^2 between ~1900 and ~2000. To put this change into perspective versus the anticipated change in forcing by one greenhouse gas, namely CO2, we note that for a doubling of CO2 we get 3.7W/^2.

We have +0.3W/m^2 change in solar irradiance versus 3.7W/m^2 per 2X CO2. Now, CO2 has not doubled since 1900. It is up by a bit less than 40% of one doubling. Combining all known forcings we get about +1.6W/m^2 of which only +0.3W/m^2 is of solar origin.

We all should acknowledge that these relatively small changes in solar radiance have played a large part in past episodes of climate change. This only emphasizes the problem we face when introducing a forcing several orders of magnitude greater than that of known solar forcing.

To complicate things further, the forcing applied by the enhanced greenhouse effect is 24 hours per day and over the entire curved surface area of the Earth. The solar value is measured against a one square meter flat plane rather than a curved surface. In other words, the +0.3W/m^2 increase in solar energy received at Earth's top of atmosphere is spread out over a curved surface which greatly reduces it's warming intensity. So much so that the change in intrinsic solar output would require +22W/m^2 to equal the warming effect of CO2's greenhouse impact at 3.7W/m^2 per doubling.

[skierinvermont]

How do you know this? Can you tell me what was the absolute minimum during the Dalton Minimum and what the global temperature change was? What was the lowest year for solar activity in the Maunder Minimum and its associated temperature change?

We haven't had a big solar minimum since 1810 so how can we possibly know these things? You just try to pretend all the science is settled when it clearly isn't.....

During the Maunder Minimum, there was a lag between the coldest conditions observed in England and the onset of the solar minimum. Obviously this doesn't prove much about global temperatures, but it's certainly true that our coldest winters could come 20-30 years after the onset of the minimum. For example, the Maunder is said to have begun in 1645, and yet the highest concentration of winters with the Thames River freezing was in the 1655-1666 period. Also, one of the coldest winters in both North America and Europe was 1708-09, long after the minimum's most intense period had ended. This makes sense logically....it would take time for reduced solar radiation and changes in cloud cover to affect global temperatures, especially if you consider albedo feedbacks like the growth of glaciers/arctic sea ice and snow cover which were observed during the Maunder Minimum, especially in the Alps. Why would the temperature change happen immediately when the 1850-2000 solar maximum took many years to cause such widespread warmth?

If the solar minimum continues, I'd expect the coldest global temperatures to occur in the 2020-2030 time frame, when the PDO is also at its most negative.

How can I possibly know that the strongest correlation occurs at the minimum or slightly lagged from the minimum?

That's a statement of pure mathematical fact. It is not disputable. That is when the strongest correlation occurs. It is possible that prolonged low solar activity would have a slight additional cooling effect, but the strongest correlation and causative mechanism is the short term response to changes in TSI throughout the solar cycle.

Ergo, the low solar activity of the last 6+ years should have already cooled us. You can see that around 2004 the lower solar activity had already began to cool the surface.

[BethesdaWX]

Wrong.. the strongest correlations occur at the minimum or slightly lag. We've had low solar activity for 5+ years now.. we should have felt its effects years ago.

Yes, "effects" for sure.....but temperature....maybe not yet, lag time has been progged between 2-8 years, & after a record Max (SC23), the lag is likely to be on the longer end for sure. We've seen the record busting blocking, the Brutal Blizzards worldwide, and the ridiculous claims for Ice Ages.....again There is significant disagreement in Lag Time, but it has been progged anywhere from 2-8 years, so No skier, with temperatre being the last effect, there is a good chance we wait another few years. More importantly, GCC continues to run low....by abot 3% in its drop, and that can cause alot of warming.

[Snow_Miser]

Ergo, the low solar activity of the last 6+ years should have already cooled us. You can see that around 2004 the lower solar activity had already began to cool the surface.

[Mencken_Fan]

I need to pull out the National Geographic special issue from the early 80s (I think) that I kept that talked all about global cooling...which I use to pull out for Global WARMING discussions. Not to debate the issues (don't know enough facts either way), but just to put in perspective the amount of discussion and claims that tend to go around and around and around.

Your perspective misses something important; the fact that knowledge is constantly being gained.

I would no more invest in a 30-year old book on climatology than I would one on neuroscience.

[Mencken_Fan]

According to this source, for the period 1965-1979, 62% of scientific studies predicted global warming:

http://www.skeptical...ns-in-1970s.htm

There was a big thing in the media about global cooling, but even then the scientific view strongly favored global warming.

Nowadays, 97% of climatologists agree on anthropogenic global warming, according to this source:

http://www.skeptical...c-consensus.htm

I was taught the "theory of global warming" in junior high school in Maryland during the middle 1960s. The idea has indeed been around a while.

I remember too the "global cooling craze" of the '70s but that fad didn't last long. It did however sell an awful lot of books.

[BethesdaWX]

Cooling trend from 2002-2008, briefly interrpted by this latest ENSO.....now cooling again.....we're at +0.28C (+0.18C after the base change), probably heading below normal within 40 days or so.

So technically, we're still cooling with a brief interruption.

[nzucker]

How can I possibly know that the strongest correlation occurs at the minimum or slightly lagged from the minimum?

That's a statement of pure mathematical fact. It is not disputable. That is when the strongest correlation occurs. It is possible that prolonged low solar activity would have a slight additional cooling effect, but the strongest correlation and causative mechanism is the short term response to changes in TSI throughout the solar cycle.

Ergo, the low solar activity of the last 6+ years should have already cooled us. You can see that around 2004 the lower solar activity had already began to cool the surface.

I'm not discussing the 11 year solar cycle here; I'm talking about the longer 100+ year cycles that cause the Maunder Minimum, the Dalton Minimum, the Sporer, the Grand Maximum, etc. Sure, the bottom of the 11-year cycle sees less irradiance which would have a slight cooling effect, but the more serious solar minimums that last decades have far more effects beyond changing how much solar radiation reaches the Earth. They also have influences on ENSO, PDO, NAO/AO, etc...all of which can affect the global climate. There may be mechanisms like cosmic rays that cause changing cloud conditions as well, although this point seems to be up for debate.

[skierinvermont]

I'm not discussing the 11 year solar cycle here; I'm talking about the longer 100+ year cycles that cause the Maunder Minimum, the Dalton Minimum, the Sporer, the Grand Maximum, etc. Sure, the bottom of the 11-year cycle sees less irradiance which would have a slight cooling effect, but the more serious solar minimums that last decades have far more effects beyond changing how much solar radiation reaches the Earth. They also have influences on ENSO, PDO, NAO/AO, etc...all of which can affect the global climate. There may be mechanisms like cosmic rays that cause changing cloud conditions as well, although this point seems to be up for debate.

The subject of discussion was the effect the present 11-yr cycle was having on global temperatures.

Bethesda asserted the current minimum would not have any effect for another year.

I pointed out that the strongest correlation with the 11-year cycle is lagged little to nothing and so we should have felt the effect already. Ergo he was wrong.

You objected and changed the subject.

You may not be discussing the 11-yr solar cycle, but that is what Bethesda was talking about and what I responded to. You changed the subject.

[nzucker]

The subject of discussion was the effect the present 11-yr cycle was having on global temperatures.

Bethesda asserted the current minimum would not have any effect for another year.

I pointed out that the strongest correlation with the 11-year cycle is lagged little to nothing and so we should have felt the effect already. Ergo he was wrong.

You objected and changed the subject.

You may not be discussing the 11-yr solar cycle, but that is what Bethesda was talking about and what I responded to. You changed the subject.

I didn't realize we were just talking about the current minimum because Bethesda also referenced the Little Ice Age in another earlier post, so I thought we were talking about both the Cycle 24 short-term minimum and the long-range effects of having a series of lower dips in the cycle. I have heard that there can be a 5-6 year lag in solar activity before it affects global temperatures, and when we're talking about a Maunder it's probably a change that takes decades to be realized in terms of altering the climate significantly to a point we'd notice it. Also, Cycle 23 was so high and we've had so many powerful cycles since 1900, that it would take a while to reverse the effects built up from over 100 years of high solar activity. This is why I think the coldest global temperatures may come in the 2020-2030 period, a position you have repeatedly mocked even though it makes sense if you believe in the influence of solar/PDO/AMO more than GHGs.

[skierinvermont]

I didn't realize we were just talking about the current minimum because Bethesda also referenced the Little Ice Age in another earlier post, so I thought we were talking about both the Cycle 24 short-term minimum and the long-range effects of having a series of lower dips in the cycle. I have heard that there can be a 5-6 year lag in solar activity before it affects global temperatures, and when we're talking about a Maunder it's probably a change that takes decades to be realized in terms of altering the climate significantly to a point we'd notice it. Also, Cycle 23 was so high and we've had so many powerful cycles since 1900, that it would take a while to reverse the effects built up from over 100 years of high solar activity. This is why I think the coldest global temperatures may come in the 2020-2030 period, a position you have repeatedly mocked even though it makes sense if you believe in the influence of solar/PDO/AMO more than GHGs.

Maybe try reading more carefully before jumping on someone next time then.

I've also explained to you multiple times that there is little to no lag effect on the solar cycle and that the strongest correlation between solar and temperature occurs at or slightly lagged at the minimum. This is a mathematical fact. Not sure why you would demand that I post evidence of this yet again.

[nzucker]

Maybe try reading more carefully before jumping on someone next time then.

I've also explained to you multiple times that there is little to no lag effect on the solar cycle and that the strongest correlation between solar and temperature occurs at or slightly lagged at the minimum. This is a mathematical fact. Not sure why you would demand that I post evidence of this yet again.

You said this, 'We've had low solar activity for 5+ years now.. we should have felt its effects years ago.' That seems to imply to me we're talking about more than the actual minimum of a single cycle since we're now supposedly ascending in Cycle 24 and no longer in the minimum. This is why I made the comment talking about longer-term solar effects, and this does seem to be corroborated by the reports of very severe winters after the height of the Maunder Minimum occurring in North America and Europe, like 1708-09. I don't see what was wrong with my analysis and why it deserves a rebuke...the conversation is hard to follow anyway with multiple people discussing different aspects of the solar question, Bethesda posting a million charts, etc. I'm also not talking about mathematical correlations between the physical minimum and TSI, I'm talking about more speculative effects of a long-term minimum on ENSO and cloud cover, more towards the Landscheidt angle. So stop telling me to "read more carefully" as I was well aware of the context of the discussion although some of the jumps were confusing.

[skierinvermont]

You said this, 'We've had low solar activity for 5+ years now.. we should have felt its effects years ago.' That seems to imply to me we're talking about more than the actual minimum of a single cycle since we're now supposedly ascending in Cycle 24 and no longer in the minimum. This is why I made the comment talking about longer-term solar effects, and this does seem to be corroborated by the reports of very severe winters after the height of the Maunder Minimum occurring in North America and Europe, like 1708-09. I don't see what was wrong with my analysis and why it deserves a rebuke...the conversation is hard to follow anyway with multiple people discussing different aspects of the solar question, Bethesda posting a million charts, etc. I'm also not talking about mathematical correlations between the physical minimum and TSI, I'm talking about more speculative effects of a long-term minimum on ENSO and cloud cover, more towards the Landscheidt angle. So stop telling me to "read more carefully" as I was well aware of the context of the discussion although some of the jumps were confusing.

It doesn't imply that in the slightest. It doesn't imply anything. it's quite straightforward. We've had low solar activity for 5+ years and therefore should theoretically have experienced some cooling. That is a straightforward fact. I don't know how you can misread that. You obviously were not aware of the context of the discussion since the discussion began with Bethesda asserting that the current solar minimum has not caused any cooling yet and me correcting that. That is the context. I am not trying to be your 'schoolteacher' I am simply suggesting that if you read more carefully you will not misread discussions and will not jump on people for stating straightforward mathematical facts which is counterproductive and frustrating for other posters.

[Snow_Miser]

It doesn't imply that in the slightest. It doesn't imply anything. it's quite straightforward. We've had low solar activity for 5+ years and therefore should theoretically have experienced some cooling. .

We have had cooling since 2002.

[skierinvermont]

We have had cooling since 2002.

exactly.

[Snow_Miser]

exactly.

You said that theoretical cooling should have occured if the Sunspot theory were to be true. It did cool when there was low solar activity.

[skierinvermont]

You said that theoretical cooling should have occured if the Sunspot theory were to be true. It did cool when there was low solar activity.

I know .. that's the point. That's what I am saying. We have already had some cooling associated with the current minimum.

[Mencken_Fan]

Just a quick little question.....If the solar minimum causes immediate cooling; and we're still basically in a minimum, why was 2010 the 2nd warmest year recorded?

I'm not challenging anyone...I'm simply puzzled by it.

[skierinvermont]

Just a quick little question.....If the solar minimum causes immediate cooling; and we're still basically in a minimum, why was 2010 the 2nd warmest year recorded?

I'm not challenging anyone...I'm simply puzzled by it.

Strong El Nino

There's been very little warming this decade of surface temperatures. Theoretically the solar minimum would have had some cooling effect the last 5 years and in practice that would explain the lack of warming in the decade.

[beneficii]

Strong El Nino

There's been very little warming this decade of surface temperatures. Theoretically the solar minimum would have had some cooling effect the last 5 years and in practice that would explain the lack of warming in the decade.

Haven't the oceans been warming a lot though?