Global Cooling:

[CrusaderFrank]

AGWCultists believe the Sun has no effect on Earth climate. Amazing

 

[mamooth]

Frank, why do you think the sun has no effect on climate? You're the only person here saying such a deranged thing, so you'll have to explain your insanity to everyone here.

And Billy, why do you keep lying outright by saying 85% of the population died during the plague? I think that sets the record for your biggest lie ever, and that's saying something. Given that everyone knows you're lying, what's the point of doing it? Is it some kind of weird performance art that your cult demands of you?

Now, let's get back to the topic. Deniers have been predicting cooling for over 40 years now, yet it never arrives. Hence, their credibility is shot.

Most of the 1970s cooling predictions originated with Dr. Reid Bryson, who made those predictions based on his theory that aerosols would block sunlight. Dr. Bryson was a hardcore global warming denier until his death in 2008. That is, it was deniers predicting cooling. The other scientists of the era were predicting warming, and they've been proven correct.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, why do you think the sun has no effect on climate? You're the only person here saying such a deranged thing, so you'll have to explain your insanity to everyone here.

And Billy, why do you keep lying outright by saying 85% of the population died during the plague? I think that sets the record for your biggest lie ever, and that's saying something. Given that everyone knows you're lying, what's the point of doing it? Is it some kind of weird performance art that your cult demands of you?

Now, let's get back to the topic. Deniers have been predicting cooling for over 40 years now, yet it never arrives. Hence, their credibility is shot.

Most of the 1970s cooling predictions originated with Dr. Reid Bryson, who made those predictions based on his theory that aerosols would block sunlight. Dr. Bryson was a hardcore global warming denier until his death in 2008. That is, it was deniers predicting cooling. The other scientists of the era were predicting warming, and they've been proven correct.

Does the AGW "Theory" Suppose an atmospheric hot spot?

 

[jc456]

I'll post this again, if the sun is in a solar minimum, then there will less lwir and that means less warming. WTF

 

[MaryL]

Wait a minute! All I've been reading about is how evil Mankind is spoiling our home planet and we'll be facing cataclysmal heating causes the poles to melt and flood the coasts. What are these “scientists” talking about?



Decade long ice age predicted as sun 'hibernates'



SCIENTISTS claim we are in for a decade-long freeze as the sun slows down solar activity by up to 60 per cent.



Read more @ GLOBAL COOLING: Decade long ice age predicted as sun 'hibernates'

That, friend isn't happening as of yet. Perhaps, if we pray really hard, and stand on our right foot with our tongue in cheek, the magic Easter bunny will make all this global warming nonsense go away.

 

[mamooth]

I'll post this again, if the sun is in a solar minimum, then there will less lwir and that means less warming. WTF

If all other factors were unchanged, that would be true.

However, as the increase in greenhouse gas forcing is far larger than the reduction in solar forcing, the trend will still be for fast warming.

And Frank, how many times do I have to tell you that yes, AGW theory does suppose a tropospheric hotspot? And since it's there, AGW theory has been validated again.

 

[flacaltenn]

Study predicting 'mini ice age' is being second-guessed
by Brooks Hays
Washington (UPI) Jul 14, 2015
Study predicting 'mini ice age' is being second-guessed


Last week, few people -- even inside academic circles -- had heard of Valentina Zharkova, a professor of mathematics [CLUE: NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST] at Northumbria University in England.

This week, her name is plastered all over the Internet. That's because she's behind new research suggesting a "mini ice age" awaits Earth in the 2030s as the sun's solar activity goes into a prolonged lull.

For a variety of reasons, news of the study has quickly reverberated across the world wide web. Not surprisingly, climate-change deniers regurgitated the headline with gleeful gusto.

In fairness, Zharokova's study didn't directly predict a miniature ice age. Her work focuses on solar activity. She suggests the irregular heartbeat governing the sun's electromagnetic activity is about to skip a few beats.

More accurately, Zharkova says the magnetic waves that cause sunspots exist as two divergent -- and competing -- frequencies. These frequencies will soon cancel each other out, she says, leading to a reduction in radiation hurled towards Earth.

Regardless, news stories tended to focus on the possibility of an upcoming ice age.

At least part of the blame lies with a National Astronomy Meeting, held last week in Llandudno, Wales. The organization sent out the press release that helped shine the spotlight on Zharokova's research -- which has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

But if Zharokova wanted to distance herself from dubious climatic predictions, she hasn't helped her cause. She recently went on record questioning the consensus of anthropogenic global warming. She believes the sun's fluctuating output plays a greater role in influencing temperature than does the greenhouse gas effect.

"I am not convinced with the arguments of the group promoting global warming of an anthropogenic nature," Zharkova told The Washington Post.

For this reason and others, Zharkova predicts a reduction in solar radiation to precipitate a drop in global temperatures, similar to the last mini ice age, or Maunder Minimum, that hit Earth in the mid-1700s and caused several decades of harsh winters in the Western Hemisphere.

But Zharokova is mostly isolated in her conclusions on the sun's climatic effects, then and now.

Yeah.. Basically.. It's a pissing contest about which force will "WIN". GW or a solar minimum.. There is a growing consensus worldwide -- that the event IS GONNA OCCUR,.. You make it sound like one Russian scientist is predicting this. The truth is BOTH NASA and UKMET and dozens of other reputable organizations are UPPING their probabilties of the event..

Natural cooling of the Sun 'won't save Earth from global warming'

Over the past several decades, the Sun has been in a “grand solar maximum” but it is quickly becoming less and less active, with an increasing probability of it entering a grand solar minimum by the end of the century, according to calculations based on radioactive isotopes affected by solar radiation over the past 9,300 years.

“The trajectory at the moment is on a path towards a Maunder minimum in the next 50 years but with an overall probability of about 20 per cent. However, over the next 100 years the probability rises to about 50 per cent,” said Professor Mike Lockwood, a solar physicist at Reading University.

“There is a significant probability that within the next half century we’d be entering another grand solar minimum and although that doesn’t make much difference to global average temperatures it might cause us in Europe to suffer more extreme cold winters,” Professor Lockwood said.

The last grand solar minimum – known as the Maunder minimum after 19th Century solar astronomers Annie and Walter Maunder – occurred between about 1645 and 1715 and was marked by the virtual disappearance of the 11-year cycle of sunspots, accompanied by a small but significant decline in the total solar radiation reaching the Earth.

The media focuses wrath on Zharkova because she is a climate skeptic,. And contrary to your pre-school notions, climate science is a VERY multi-disciplinary science that has PALEONOLOGISTS, and physicists and chemists and MATHEMATICIANS participating in the field. And SOLAR science is her specialty.. Stuff that shit..

1) NO ONE knows the GLOBAL effect of the last Maunder Minimum. THe "guesses" are based on flawed GLOBAL simulations (hockey sticks) that do not have the spatial or temporal coverage REQUIRED to even SEE a 50 or 80 year event.

2) General consensus is -- the N Hemi will see perhaps 4 or 5 times the cooling of the rest of the globe. With or Without GW.

3) Local HI RESOLUTION temperature proxies from the Maunder Minimum show "little ice age LIA" signatures in tropical and S. hemi of up to 0.8degC ... So it is not clear that it will be a single Hemi result.

4) Whatever the result was LAST TIME -- will most likely be the effect THIS TIME... Despite all the pissing about whether it would "erase" the GW signature,.

It's just another big embarrassment for the Global Warming frauds to live through.. It will be welcome break for folks who want OTHER Enviro issues to be brought back onto the table.. Like me....

 

[jc456]

Wait a minute! All I've been reading about is how evil Mankind is spoiling our home planet and we'll be facing cataclysmal heating causes the poles to melt and flood the coasts. What are these “scientists” talking about?



Decade long ice age predicted as sun 'hibernates'



SCIENTISTS claim we are in for a decade-long freeze as the sun slows down solar activity by up to 60 per cent.



Read more @ GLOBAL COOLING: Decade long ice age predicted as sun 'hibernates'

That, friend isn't happening as of yet. Perhaps, if we pray really hard, and stand on our right foot with our tongue in cheek, the magic Easter bunny will make all this global warming nonsense go away.

Oh, I thought that's how we got here. Hmmmmm, seems it's a solar minimum. Can't be warming unless you can explain where the extra warm is coming from?

 

[jc456]

I'll post this again, if the sun is in a solar minimum, then there will less lwir and that means less warming. WTF

If all other factors were unchanged, that would be true.

However, as the increase in greenhouse gas forcing is far larger than the reduction in solar forcing, the trend will still be for fast warming.

And Frank, how many times do I have to tell you that yes, AGW theory does suppose a tropospheric hotspot? And since it's there, AGW theory has been validated again.

Huh, if there is less lwir, how does more CO2 get filled up with less?

 

[Old Rocks]

• 
  Explore this journal >

View issue TOC
Volume 37, Issue 5
March 2010

Climate
On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth
Authors


Abstract
[1] The current exceptionally long minimum of solar activity has led to the suggestion that the Sun might experience a new grand minimum in the next decades, a prolonged period of low activity similar to the Maunder minimum in the late 17th century. The Maunder minimum is connected to the Little Ice Age, a time of markedly lower temperatures, in particular in the Northern hemisphere. Here we use a coupled climate model to explore the effect of a 21st-century grand minimum on future global temperatures, finding a moderate temperature offset of no more than −0.3°C in the year 2100 relative to a scenario with solar activity similar to recent decades. This temperature decrease is much smaller than the warming expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century.

On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth - Feulner - 2010 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Looks like the real scientists are saying no big deal if we get a Maunder Minimum. Really doesn't change the fact that it will continue warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'll post this again, if the sun is in a solar minimum, then there will less lwir and that means less warming. WTF

If all other factors were unchanged, that would be true.

However, as the increase in greenhouse gas forcing is far larger than the reduction in solar forcing, the trend will still be for fast warming.

And Frank, how many times do I have to tell you that yes, AGW theory does suppose a tropospheric hotspot? And since it's there, AGW theory has been validated again.

Huh, if there is less lwir, how does more CO2 get filled up with less?

Huh, is that in English? CO2 filled with less? LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

Could a future “Grand Solar Minimum” like the Maunder Minimum stop global warming?


Abstract
[1] A future Maunder Minimum type grand solar minimum, with total solar irradiance reduced by 0.25% over a 50 year period from 2020 to 2070, is imposed in a future climate change scenario experiment (RCP4.5) using, for the first time, a global coupled climate model that includes ozone chemistry and resolved stratospheric dynamics (Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model). This model has been shown to simulate two amplifying mechanisms that produce regional signals of decadal climate variability comparable to observations, and thus is considered a credible tool to simulate the Sun's effects on Earth's climate. After the initial decrease of solar radiation in 2020, globally averaged surface air temperature cools relative to the reference simulation by up to several tenths of a degree Centigrade. By the end of the grand solar minimum in 2070, the warming nearly catches up to the reference simulation. Thus, a future grand solar minimum could slow down but not stop global warming.

Could a future “Grand Solar Minimum” like the Maunder Minimum stop global warming? - Meehl - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Once again, the Maunder Minimum appears to be no big deal. Just a slight slowdown in the inevitable.

 

[jc456]

I'll post this again, if the sun is in a solar minimum, then there will less lwir and that means less warming. WTF

If all other factors were unchanged, that would be true.

However, as the increase in greenhouse gas forcing is far larger than the reduction in solar forcing, the trend will still be for fast warming.

And Frank, how many times do I have to tell you that yes, AGW theory does suppose a tropospheric hotspot? And since it's there, AGW theory has been validated again.

Huh, if there is less lwir, how does more CO2 get filled up with less?

Huh, is that in English? CO2 filled with less? LOL

dude for sure right? CO2 absorbs, and if there is less of something to absorb how is it it can absorb more if more CO2 is added to the atmosphere. Seems simple socks.

 

[Crick]

CO2 absorbs, and if there is less of something to absorb how is it it can absorb more if more CO2 is added to the atmosphere. Seems simple socks.

I hope you weren't under the impression that this sentence was intelligible. Sounds almost Trump-like. Perhaps you could try that again, with a clear subject and verb.

 

[jc456]

CO2 absorbs, and if there is less of something to absorb how is it it can absorb more if more CO2 is added to the atmosphere. Seems simple socks.

I hope you weren't under the impression that this sentence was intelligible. Sounds almost Trump-like. Perhaps you could try that again, with a clear subject and verb.

nice dodge.

Here stevie, what is it CO2 absorbs?

 

[Crick]

Musty smells from the gym shoes in my closet?

Think about this analogy. I've got a carburetted Chevy 454 running on an engine fixture. I've set the throttle to 4,000 RPM. Engine speed is being controlled by the butterfly plate which is restricting the engine's air supply. It is NOT being controlled by any throttling of the fuel supply. Fuel is supplied commensurate with the air speed in the carburetor neck. Obviously, there is an upper limit, but the fuel system is capable of supplying more fuel than the engine can physically handle. Engine speed is being controlled by the position of the throttle plate in the carburetor.

Now then, let's put a teeny, tiny crimp in the fuel line. We'll reduce its maximum capacity by a few hundredths of a percent, about the amount that the sun's output is being reduced. Now let's reach over and pull that throttle plate open. Guess what happens?

 

[jc456]

Musty smells from the gym shoes in my closet?

Think about this analogy. I've got a carburetted Chevy 454 running on an engine fixture. I've set the throttle to 4,000 RPM. Engine speed is being controlled by the butterfly plate which is restricting the engine's air supply. It is NOT being controlled by any throttling of the fuel supply. Fuel is supplied commensurate with the air speed in the carburetor neck. Obviously, there is an upper limit, but the fuel system is capable of supplying more fuel than the engine can physically handle. Engine speed is being controlled by the position of the throttle plate in the carburetor.

Now then, let's put a teeny, tiny crimp in the fuel line. We'll reduce its maximum capacity by a few hundredths of a percent, about the amount that the sun's output is being reduced. Now let's reach over and pull that throttle plate open. Guess what happens?

well no it doesn't. you just have to live with the musty smell. Sucks to be you, i actually do laundry. But that's another story for another day.

Now, nice dodge again, yet you still failed to state what CO2 absorbs. So what is it stevie?

i see, now you don't want anyone to know I got ya and that I am indeed correct. Funny stuff stevie.

 

[Muhammed]

Global cooling would totally decimate the world's largest granary crops. Thus causing massive starvation. Yes, the beneficial CO2 input from mankind may help a little, but let's face it, not enough to really matter significantly.

We are warm-blooded mammals. We will die if we do not warm our environment. That is kinda what it means to be a warm-blooded mammal in the fucking first place.

All of you who hate warm blooded mammals should commit suicide, otherwise you are cowardly hypocrites IMO.

WTF is stopping you pieces of shit? Why don't you quit exhaling CO2 into the atmosphere if you think it is such a bad thing ?

Is that a demonstration of that 158 IQ?

At the temperatures present in 1850, there was plenty of Earth environment that didn't require warming to support human life.

No one here hates warm-blooded mammals. That's about the stupidest conclusion I think I've ever seen Mr Genius. What branch of science led you there?

Botany.

 

[Crick]

How does botany lead you to believe those who accept AGW as valid, hate warm-blooded animals?