Arctic Melting evidence of Global Warming

They have not been predicting it for years (except for Hanson's global cooling scare before his global warming scare). They are predicting it in the near future due to the Suns decreasing activity.

 

ENSO is some what a misnomer in that it is an irregular occurrence. Oscillation would be defined using the term: regular. There is also the difference in amplitude.

We know that during an el Nino heat is released from the ocean into the atmosphere, thus the "warming phase." Yet during a la Nina, the "cooling phase," we are building ocean heat content. So to call la Nina a cooling phase may be incorrect language.

 

Way back in 1995, Dr. Theodor Landscheidt predicted the sun was entering an 80-90 year long solar minimum accompanied by a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030. Back in 2006, Russian scientists were also predicting an imminent ice age, and yet temperatures have continued to increase. So please tell us, when is this global cooling going to start?

Notice how solar activity peaked way back in the 1950's? Didn't global temperatures decrease during that period? And while solar activity has decreased since then, hasn't global temperature continued to increase?

 

There is a known lag of 10 to 15 years between a change in solar activity and temperature change. The cause of the lag is unknown. The reduction in solar cycle activity corresponds well with the slowdown in warming rise around 2000. Some solar scientists predict a coming 30 year cooling phase.



The key take away here is not that the solar scientists are right or the alarmists are right but there is much still unknown in climate science.

 

YOU SAID "CO2 adds heat to the system." Tell how your blanket "ADDS HEAT". In other words, ADDS CALORIES. Not conserves, not insulates, ADDS.
Take your time. On second thought, don't respond. All you do is play word games and subtract from the sum total of human knowledge.

 

Time to give you a grammar lesson. "1.3 parts per million, PER YEAR, increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, on a base of 15,500 (parts per million). You Leftists play word games relentlessly. When the meaning is clear, you try to confuse and change the subject. You don't debate, you play childish games.

Because Al Gore ONLY made one billion dollars from his schtick, and his hypocrisy, and his ignorant lies. One billion doesn't cut it. You could have done a little homework here, but you chose to play word games instead.
Now for THIS word game of yours:

1. Carbon taxes do NOT make it a "better world." They disproportionately hurt the poorest, but you lefties don't care.
2. The air and water had been getting cleaner in the U.S. for decades before you started your Hockey Schtick. Please stop the arrogant pretensions.
3. "Liveable cities" - yeah, like beautiful Detroit, liberal nirvana.
4. "Preserve rainforests." The U.S. doesn't have any rainforests, but leftists are intent on telling everyone else what to do, so.....
5. Stopping fracking will NOT cut our dependence on foreign oil. Opposing all drilling, everywhere, as Leftists always do, will NOT cut our dependence on foreign oil. Closing all nuclear power plants and preventing the construction of any new ones will NOT cut our dependence on foreign oil.
And on and on the Leftist misrepresentations go, without end. This is why so many forums like this one go off the Left End, because conservatives:
A. Have better things to do than continue leftist food fights,
B. Get tired of trying to explain to those who will not learn because they already think they know everything.

So now you go to my Ignore List for obvious reasons.

~ciao

 

I see a correlation problem between solar activity and temperature starting around 1980 that no 10 or 15 year lag will resolve.

 

When atmospheric CO2 was only 280 parts per million before human activity caused it increase by 1.3 ppm/year, I still don't see where you are getting 15,500 ppm from. Maybe if you tried backing up your arguments with actual science we could avoid these misunderstandings.

I think it's cute how you believe anthropogenic global warming didn't exist before Al Gore.

I feel honored to be included in such distinguished company. Thanks and arrivederci.

 

First, the graph came from (un)SkepticalScience originally. From http://www.uwosh.edu where your graph is.

Second, it is comparing temperature to solar irradiance, not solar activity.

 

If you're suggesting that the graph is not accurate because it came from Skeptical Science, that would be a logical fallacy as they properly source their data.

Solar activity is "the output of the Sun in all forms, light, solar wind, and energetic particles", and can be measured in many ways. When the question is how much heat is being retained in Earth's atmosphere, wouldn't TSI in W/m2 be more useful than the number of sunspots or number of active regions?

 

TSI vs sunspots is literally Science vs Magic.

"Sir, the battle is lost, the troops are leaving the field."

"BUT THE ENTRAILS SAY WE SHALL HAVE A GREAT VICTORY!"

 

Thanks for proving my point, the graph was from (un)SkepticalScienc and for solar irradiance, not solar activity.

 

Can you define the difference between "Solar Irradiance" and "Solar Activity"?

Can you measure Solar Activity in terms of heat applied to the Earth's system?

SkepticalScience cited their source which was not from SkepticalScience. Can you ellaborate on what is your issue with the "Graph in question"?

 

Solar irradiance is the power per unit area received from the Sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation in the wavelength range of the measuring instrument.

Solar Activity is the sum of all variable and short-lived disturbances on the sun, as sunspots, prominences, and solar flares.

Your graph stated solar activity on the graph and the website it came from linked to that (un)SkepticalScience page (that I posted) which showed Solar Irradiance.

- - - Updated - - -

Look at the scales on the graph. It is well known that Solar Irradiance changes little while Solar Activity varies greatly.

 

We got to do this (*)(*)(*)(*) again. It's not the trend. It's the integral.

Put a lot of water in the stove. Turn it to high. Water starts to warm. 2 minutes later turn it down to med-hi. It will keep warming.

 

Can you tell the "class" how short-term variables called "Solar Activity" will influence Earth's Environment EXCEPT BY POWER PER UNIT AREA?

I mean for (*)(*)(*)(*) sake, are you this (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dense?

Do solar flares shoot magical "invisible heat rays" at the Earth that shoot temperature up, only detectable by the "Solar Activity"?

By the way:

Solar Irradiance changes little because Solar Activity changes little. 1watt/meter^2 is about a 0.5C temperature difference. And what we see in solar maximums to solar minimums is about a 1watt/meter^2 difference for a short 11 year cycle. So what more do you (*)(*)(*)(*)ING EXPECT?

 

No it (*)(*)(*)(*)ing won't...?

As soon as the heat source is gone the pot of water starts to cool. Unless you're implying the pot of water was never hotter than "medium high" to begin with in which case your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing statement is wrong outright.

 

Wow so much spamming about science and your general scientific knowledge is this bad. In going to ignore your whole hear source removed crack. Thst just show you are bad at reading.

Re-read the experiment and try again.

Yes when you turn the stove down it will continue to warm. Or do you think that medium-high on a stove is less than 212F.

 

One of the least understood processes in climate science are clouds. Solar activity effects cloud formation and coverage. Clouds change albedo which affects how fast earth warms or cools. The effects of magnetic fields on climate, both earth and the sun are not well understood.

 

Dude, as I said, if you think that your analogy is important to the discussion you're dead wrong. The system cannot continue to warm past whatever the heat input is, if the system is warmer than the heat input the system cools to the universal environment.

So then what's your argument? That the Earth is now only warming less fast than when the sun was EVEN hotter?

 

Well I'll at least concede you're not completely bat(*)(*)(*)(*) crazy. If you can argue why solar activity influences clouds more than heat in general (such as a warmer earth more evaporation etc.) then you would have measure the albedo effect of the clouds, versus the insulation of the clouds, against the total heat trapped in the earth by CO2 and etc.

I don't think the effects of Magnetic fields has any baring on the climate except to prevent Solar winds from blasting our atmosphere away like it did Mars. I have never seen a lot of research to suggest that magnetic fields are much more important than that...none of the components of the Earth's Atmosphere are magnetic in any particularly interesting way at the power level of the Earth's magnetic field.

 

Magnetic fields are very influential in keeping Earth from being bombarded by cosmic rays. Changes in both fields effect that and the hypothesis the cosmic rays seed clouds would be important in cloud formation.

You are right that heat coming in matches heat going out. The CO2 hypothesis does not change that but inflates the atmosphere and makes the lowest layer retain more heat. Not too many scientists disagree with the basic hypothesis but there is very little agreement on anything after that.

The models are really good for testing hypothesis (and the models) but very poor for predicting much of anything, especially to 2100, or for directing policy.

 

Its not my job to explain a very simple system to you. The potential will continue to warm that is a fact. Just because the heat source has been reduced does not mean the system has to stop warming.

It's a simple fact that you can prove on your stove top.

 

Actually albedo dwarfs any proposed effect of CO2. Albedo is on the magnitude of hundreds of watts per square meter while CO2 is about 4 watts per square per doubling. The slightest changed I albedo are far greater than any effect CO2 can have.

 

Uh, not cloud albedo, you're suggesting some sunspots will increase the clouds and change the Earth's Albedo by hundreds of watts?

What about the melting Arctic? Isn't that REVERSING Albedo in the other direction by hundreds of watts?

WOW...your thoughts are so half assed.

- - - Updated - - -

No, see there's where you're wrong. There is NO potential. This isn't some convection system, where hot objects exchange heat mechanically.

We are talking about radiation. It's either on or off.

- - - Updated - - -

Well luckily we can measure both, so provide measurements of changes in Magnetic field or Cosmic rays and start that theory to play out to its logical conclusion.