Global cooling: another Maunder minimum coming?

[DJofSD]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

Will this put the boots to the global warming alarmists? Only time will tell.

Step up ladies and gentlemen, place your bets.

[davew]

It is no longer global warming

it was changed to climate change
and changed again to climate disruption

a mini ice age fits the climate disruption model/scam

I do not know how the masses will heat their dwellings without producing climate disruption gasses

[Greyfox]

On another thread hcap is all worried about global warming.

The Sun has been the main contributor to global warming forever.

If the Sun "goes to sleep" from 2030 to 2040 as those scientists are predicting, we may need all of the greenhouse gas that we have to help keep us warm.

[FantasticDan]

Sun cooling wouldn't save Earth from warming (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/natural-cooling-of-the-sun-will-not-be-enough-to-save-earth-from-global-warming-warn-scientists-10340067.html)

[DJofSD]

Sun cooling wouldn't save Earth from warming (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/natural-cooling-of-the-sun-will-not-be-enough-to-save-earth-from-global-warming-warn-scientists-10340067.html)
FUD

[Clocker]

FUD

No, no, it's settled science. :p

[classhandicapper]

When I saw that headline I was sure it would contain some analysis of how man made global warming was impacting the sun. :bang:

[FantasticDan]

FUDWhen it comes to the cons around here, you're right on target :ThmbUp: :p

qZeqL0CUvjY

[hcap]

On another thread hcap is all worried about global warming.

The Sun has been the main contributor to global warming forever.

If the Sun "goes to sleep" from 2030 to 2040 as those scientists are predicting, we may need all of the greenhouse gas that we have to help keep us warm.Fact of the matter is the sun is already in a slight cooling trend and has been since 1960. On one of the upteen AGW threads you claimed the global increase in temps was due only to the sun. I asked yoy to support that. You have the perfect chance now......

Except....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_vs_temp_500.jpg

[hcap]

“Even if you do go into Maunder minimum conditions it’s not going to combat global warming, the sun’s not going to save us,” said lead author Sarah

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/23/weak-sun-could-offset-some-global-warming-europe-us-study

[Tom]

...said lead author Sarah Palin.



:lol:

[dartman51]

The truly sad thing is, there are people, seemingly intelligent people, that believe Cappy's load of CRAP. :rolleyes:

[tucker6]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_vs_temp_500.jpg
what paper does that come from?

[boxcar]

what paper does that come from?

Charmin, of course.

[Greyfox]

Fact of the matter is the sun is already in a slight cooling trend and has been since 1960. On one of the upteen AGW threads you claimed the global increase in temps was due only to the sun. I asked yoy to support that. You have the perfect chance now......

Except....



I'm not a professional scientist or astronomer, but Pluto, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune's moon have all warmed up as the earth has.
Scientists who believe in global warming say that must be due to orbital wobbles. But that is speculation too.
Well, if so, then perhaps the earth has an orbital wobble too.
Not likely.
The fact is the sun is the major factor in global warming and global cooling.
Always has been, always will be.
There are no cars on the planets I mentioned above and "orbital wobble" is a cop out.
I will not get into playing "Graph Game" which is your area of expertise from what I can determine.

[hcap]

what paper does that come from?

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/12/ipcc-draft-report-published-online-suggests-that-the-sun-is-not-behind-climate-change/

http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/137299/solaractivity_and_temperature_400x270.jpg

IPCC draft report published online - suggests that the sun is not behind climate change

The argument that climate change is caused by solar activity has been described by an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead author as "completely ridiculous" and "exactly the opposite" of what the draft IPCC report concludes, after a climate skeptic blogger leaked a draft section of its next report onto the internet. Climate skeptic bloggers have claimed the IPCC's new report shows solar activity is causing global warming and the "jig is up" on climate science. But a closer look indicates that this is another case of cherry-picking.

[hcap]

I'm not a professional scientist or astronomer, but Pluto, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune's moon have all warmed up as the earth has.
Scientists who believe in global warming say that must be due to orbital wobbles. But that is speculation too.
Well, if so, then perhaps the earth has an orbital wobble too.
Not likely.
The fact is the sun is the major factor in global warming and global cooling.
Always has been, always will be.
There are no cars on the planets I mentioned above and "orbital wobble" is a cop out.
I will not get into playing "Graph Game" which is your area of expertise from what I can determine.B.S.

About other planetary bodies have all warmed? Really? Documentation ? Mr Not a professional scientist

[Greyfox]

B.S.

About other planetary bodies have all warmed? Really? Documentation ? Mr Not a professional scientist

I'm sure uranus heats up with each post you make. :D

[hcap]

Something that should make uranus even more nervous.
p.s: WHY NO DOCUMENTATION ?

Here is Solar and Volcanic versus temperature

http://dumbscientist.com/archives/abrupt-climate-change

This graph is from this peer reviewed paper
Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Clima

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_additivity.pdf

http://dumbscientist.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/pcm_ensemble.png

The black curve represents observations. The blue curve represents the result of a computer simulation that accounts for natural variations like volcanic eruptions and changes in the brightness of the Sun. The shaded blue area represents the uncertainty of that simulation. The red curve includes all the natural variations in the blue curve, but adds human emissions like CO2 and sulfate aerosols. Notice that after ~1970 the observed temperatures aren’t consistent with natural variations, but they are within the error bars of the prediction made by accounting for human emissions.

[Tom]

I'm sure uranus heats up with each post you make. :D

Post of the month. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[tucker6]

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/12/ipcc-draft-report-published-online-suggests-that-the-sun-is-not-behind-climate-change/

http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/137299/solaractivity_and_temperature_400x270.jpg

IPCC draft report published online - suggests that the sun is not behind climate change

The argument that climate change is caused by solar activity has been described by an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead author as "completely ridiculous" and "exactly the opposite" of what the draft IPCC report concludes, after a climate skeptic blogger leaked a draft section of its next report onto the internet. Climate skeptic bloggers have claimed the IPCC's new report shows solar activity is causing global warming and the "jig is up" on climate science. But a closer look indicates that this is another case of cherry-picking.
So the UN govt concluded and published this all by themselves. Is this the same group that said the Himalayas would be ice free in 2035?? That has yet to have their computer models be remotely correct?? Who keeps changing the name of your cult because it quickly falls into ill repute all the time. That group??

[tucker6]

So the UN govt concluded and published this all by themselves. Is this the same group that said the Himalayas would be ice free in 2035?? That has yet to have their computer models be remotely correct?? Who keeps changing the name of your cult because it quickly falls into ill repute all the time. That group??
Not that I have doubts as to the veracity and goodwill the UN has for the average Joe. I mean, come on, everywhere they go on peacekeeping missions, they spread their seed (er, I mean goodwill) among the masses.

[davew]

So the UN govt concluded and published this all by themselves. Is this the same group that said the Himalayas would be ice free in 2035?? That has yet to have their computer models be remotely correct?? Who keeps changing the name of your cult because it quickly falls into ill repute all the time. That group??


That could be my target date for Mt Everest - I do not really like cold, ice and snow, and with the ocean rising, it would be less feet above sea level, no?

[tucker6]

That could be my target date for Mt Everest - I do not really like cold, ice and snow, and with the ocean rising, it would be less feet above sea level, no?
Absolutely. Mt Everest stands at 29,029 feet above sea level. At current sea level rise of 9 inches per century, it would take 3,870,500 years for water to reach the summit. Of course the earth only has a couple hundred feet of possible sea level rise before all the ice would melt out, so something less extreme would suit your purposes I would think.

[davew]

Absolutely. Mt Everest stands at 29,029 feet above sea level. At current sea level rise of 9 inches per century, it would take 3,870,500 years for water to reach the summit. Of course the earth only has a couple hundred feet of possible sea level rise before all the ice would melt out, so something less extreme would suit your purposes I would think.

see, that is the part I do not understand - the world has so much surface area, the volume of water needed is very great - or with the increased temperature, will the water be boiling and full of air?

Or is the land masses / islands actually sinking?

[tucker6]

see, that is the part I do not understand - the world has so much surface area, the volume of water needed is very great - or with the increased temperature, will the water be boiling and full of air?

Or is the land masses / islands actually sinking?
sea level rise is an absolute canard as you point out. If all the ice covering Antarctica, Greenland, and in mountain glaciers around the world were to melt, sea level would rise about 70 meters (230 feet). Let us remember that most of Antarctica is cooling and Greenland ice and the Himalayan ice isn't going anywhere soon either.

Now there is also false sea level rise due to land subsidence, such as has been documented in VA/NC and several island atolls. Of course, due to confirmation bias, the scientists that issued their 'peer reviewed' paper did not check on subsidence as a possibility.

Lastly, as the globe warms, water vapor will increase (warm air holds more water in the form of vapor), and this is a negative feedback to sea level rise. Always amazing to me how many positive and negative feedbacks exist on this planet to regulate temperature. No wonder the science isn't settled despite claims to the contrary.

All-in-all, chances are more likely that sea level rise will decelerate in the next few decades rather than accelerate due to the decreasing amount of ice that could make it rise faster and the water vapor negative feedback. Fairly intuitive if you ask me.

[DJofSD]

sea level rise is an absolute canard as you point out. If all the ice covering Antarctica, Greenland, and in mountain glaciers around the world were to melt, sea level would rise about 70 meters (230 feet). Let us remember that most of Antarctica is cooling and Greenland ice and the Himalayan ice isn't going anywhere soon either.

Now there is also false sea level rise due to land subsidence, such as has been documented in VA/NC and several island atolls. Of course, due to confirmation bias, the scientists that issued their 'peer reviewed' paper did not check on subsidence as a possibility.

Lastly, as the globe warms, water vapor will increase (warm air holds more water in the form of vapor), and this is a negative feedback to sea level rise. Always amazing to me how many positive and negative feedbacks exist on this planet to regulate temperature. No wonder the science isn't settled despite claims to the contrary.

All-in-all, chances are more likely that sea level rise will decelerate in the next few decades rather than accelerate due to the decreasing amount of ice that could make it rise faster and the water vapor negative feedback. Fairly intuitive if you ask me.
BTW, new glaciers are forming such as the one on Mount St. Helens.

[tucker6]

BTW, new glaciers are forming such as the one on Mount St. Helens.
impossible. The Earth has a fever. :rolleyes:

[tucker6]

90% of all ice is held in Antarctica, which is for the most part cooling. Have fun with your 4 meter per century rises Cappy.

[boxcar]

B.S.

About other planetary bodies have all warmed? Really? Documentation ? Mr Not a professional scientist

Here, stuff this in your hasp pipe and puff on it.

http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html

I just love how the latter part of the article reads about all the "alternative explanations" for the warming of multiple planets in our solar system. Note carefully the use of such terms as "could", "may be", "possibly". Very scientific stuff just loaded with hard, scientifically-proven facts. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: