Ruhroo! Scientists say we're heading for cooling. Uhgaaeeeeeeen.

[Old Rocks]

Used Google Scholar to look up Professor Valentina Zharkova. Very well published and respected scientist, and solar dynamics is her field of study. Does that mean she's correct in her conclusions? No, but it means that her conclusions are based on solid evidence, so her judgements on what the evidence is pointing towards is to be respected.

So what happens if she is correct? Well, depending on the decrease in energy from the sun, and the increase in the amount retained from our GHGs, we will either see a lot less warming, or even a bit of cooling. Until the sun resumes normal cycles, then a whiplash effect, as the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere will be much larger by then.

 

[flacaltenn]

Every so often, one of the Russians goes on a global cooling kick. Something about the Russians. And then the British tabloids pick it up. It's a Ukrainian this time, but same difference. It never pans out. Fools the deniers, of course, but everything fools them.

Interesting though, how only Slavs and deniers embrace global cooling now. Socialist peas in a pod, they are.

Yeah... That must be it... The Russians MADE the British Met Office give it a 50% in 50 years.
Hell --- that's a higher confidence that NASA GISS gave their statement of 2014 being the warmest year..

 

[flacaltenn]

So you don't like Russian Science. Here's German and English science. 30% from Univ of Reading.

German Scientists Solar Cycle 24 Points To Dalton Or Maunder-Like Minimum Boding Ill For A Climate Cooling NoTricksZone

 

[Billy_Bob]

So you don't like Russian Science. Here's German and English science. 30% from Univ of Reading.

German Scientists Solar Cycle 24 Points To Dalton Or Maunder-Like Minimum Boding Ill For A Climate Cooling NoTricksZone

Funny how the solar scientists both state that we will have major cooling by different mechanisms affecting the suns output. The result will be the same for us here on earth. What causes it in the cycles of the sun, we are still far from understanding.

 

[Old Rocks]

We know less about the cycles of the sun than we do about the dynamics of our climate. We do know the results of a Dalton Minimum, and we know that GHGs retain more of the energy we recieve from the sun. How this will play out is not at all clear at present.

 

[jc456]

We know less about the cycles of the sun than we do about the dynamics of our climate. We do know the results of a Dalton Minimum, and we know that GHGs retain more of the energy we recieve from the sun. How this will play out is not at all clear at present.

you do? You know how much energy is retained in GHG's? Show us, give a link.

 

[Billy_Bob]

We know less about the cycles of the sun than we do about the dynamics of our climate. We do know the results of a Dalton Minimum, and we know that GHGs retain more of the energy we recieve from the sun. How this will play out is not at all clear at present.

Please share with me your retention calculations and the empirical evidence to support it. (Note:I said EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE not model output)

 

[Billy_Bob]

We know less about the cycles of the sun than we do about the dynamics of our climate. We do know the results of a Dalton Minimum, and we know that GHGs retain more of the energy we recieve from the sun. How this will play out is not at all clear at present.

you do? You know how much energy is retained in GHG's? Show us, give a link.

Whats funny about this, there are no calculations and empirical evidence to support his hypothesis. How long have we been asking for this? (what has 120ppm of CO2 done in our atmosphere using empirical evidence?) Time for Old Crock to put up!

 

[flacaltenn]

We know less about the cycles of the sun than we do about the dynamics of our climate. We do know the results of a Dalton Minimum, and we know that GHGs retain more of the energy we recieve from the sun. How this will play out is not at all clear at present.

you do? You know how much energy is retained in GHG's? Show us, give a link.

Whats funny about this, there are no calculations and empirical evidence to support his hypothesis. How long have we been asking for this? (what has 120ppm of CO2 done in our atmosphere using empirical evidence?) Time for Old Crock to put up!

OldRocks was being genuine about what we know about the sun. The empirical effect of GHgases won't go away with decreased solar activity. BUT -- we may be surprised to learn that the heat LEAKAGE rate to space is not the only effect that solar heating has on the climate. Realistic to imagine that there are SIMILAR but different feedbacks associated with a SOLAR forcing. Such as the direct effects on weather, ocean thermal absorption, etc.. The broadband nature of solar thermal forcings is fundamentally different from the feedback effects from CO2 Longwave IR.

To my knowledge --- NONE of those differences in feedback structure are included in GCMs, because no one has even CONSIDERED solar forcings as a serious climate changer.. (Or they haven't been paid to do that --- yet.)
That's pretty juvenile actually...

 

[Billy_Bob]

We know less about the cycles of the sun than we do about the dynamics of our climate. We do know the results of a Dalton Minimum, and we know that GHGs retain more of the energy we recieve from the sun. How this will play out is not at all clear at present.

you do? You know how much energy is retained in GHG's? Show us, give a link.

Whats funny about this, there are no calculations and empirical evidence to support his hypothesis. How long have we been asking for this? (what has 120ppm of CO2 done in our atmosphere using empirical evidence?) Time for Old Crock to put up!

OldRocks was being genuine about what we know about the sun. The empirical effect of GHgases won't go away with decreased solar activity. BUT -- we may be surprised to learn that the heat LEAKAGE rate to space is not the only effect that solar heating has on the climate. Realistic to imagine that there are SIMILAR but different feedbacks associated with a SOLAR forcing. Such as the direct effects on weather, ocean thermal absorption, etc.. The broadband nature of solar thermal forcings is fundamentally different from the feedback effects from CO2 Longwave IR.

To my knowledge --- NONE of those differences in feedback structure are included in GCMs, because no one has even CONSIDERED solar forcings as a serious climate changer.. (Or they haven't been paid to do that --- yet.)
That's pretty juvenile actually...

The point of my post was simply, the science hasn't been done. WE cant even quantify what GHG's actually do in our atmosphere. So how can it be settled? You make that point very nicely.

 

[Crick]

ERROR in SUBJECT LINE

The subject of this thread and every single denier instance of a reference to it I've seen uses the plural "scientists". There is only ONE scientist involved in this: a mathematician from Northumbria University.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Algore is saying that a .5 degree drop in the average temperature will plunge the globe into an Ice Age.

Better start paying into those Global Cooling" and "Carbon Tax" schemes right away!

 

[Crick]

I thought all you deniers were conservatives and thus passionate champions for capitalism, competition and the free market. Carbon cap and trade schemes do nothing but make use of that capitalistic free market to create a competition that will push America's industries to develop the most effective method to limit carbon emissions at the minimum cost (or even maximum profit). It's not as if the government just dropped the bomb and said "THOUGH SHALT NOT EMIT CO2". They're letting businesses figure it out on their own, at their own pace. You guys should love it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I thought all you deniers were conservatives and thus passionate champions for capitalism, competition and the free market. Carbon cap and trade schemes do nothing but make use of that capitalistic free market to create a competition that will push America's industries to develop the most effective method to limit carbon emissions at the minimum cost (or even maximum profit). It's not as if the government just dropped the bomb and said "THOUGH SHALT NOT EMIT CO2". They're letting businesses figure it out on their own, at their own pace. You guys should love it.

Selling indulgences is not a free market, sploogy.

 

[Crick]

I thought all you deniers were conservatives and thus passionate champions for capitalism, competition and the free market. Carbon cap and trade schemes do nothing but make use of that capitalistic free market to create a competition that will push America's industries to develop the most effective method to limit carbon emissions at the minimum cost (or even maximum profit). It's not as if the government just dropped the bomb and said "THOUGH SHALT NOT EMIT CO2". They're letting businesses figure it out on their own, at their own pace. You guys should love it.

Selling indulgences is not a free market, sploogy.

But the functional exchanges don't involve the government. They involve parties in related industries trading those "indulgences" among themselves. All the government is required to do is set caps on the total market's emission. Any fees they tack on (if any) are almost irrelevant.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But the functional exchanges don't involve the government.

Of course it does. Who creates the indulgences in the first place?

They involve parties in related industries trading those "indulgences" among themselves. All the government is required to do is set caps on the total market's emission. Any fees they tack on (if any) are almost irrelevant.

The government creates an asset out of thin air which is then sold. This has nothing to do with capitalism - no more than when the Catholic church did it in the dark ages. Our new dark ages feature this as a means of controlling industry and ensuring the winners and losers - to the benefit of our rulers.

 

[SwimExpert]

ERROR in SUBJECT LINE

The subject of this thread and every single denier instance of a reference to it I've seen uses the plural "scientists". There is only ONE scientist involved in this: a mathematician from Northumbria University.

You forgot to adjust for hidden scientists. Once we do that, we have 1000 scientists.

 

[Crick]

There may well be scientists who agree with her. Her work was peer reviewed after all. But I don't see a flood of climate scientists yet switching gears.

 

[HenryBHough]

AWG cultists are gonna lie down on the beach naked in hopes of mass suicide by sunshine.

Poor bastards are gonna freeze to death.

Either way, what's the downside?

 

[jc456]

AWG cultists are gonna lie down on the beach naked in hopes of mass suicide by sunshine.

Poor bastards are gonna freeze to death.

Either way, what's the downside?

Don't like that vision you just put in my head!