An Inconvenient Truth - Solar Minimum - Global Cooling

[darthvader5300]

New Ice Age? We Russians are already facing it! Which is why we are using so much of of our surplus military jet engines to melt snow from our street for snow plows can't compensate for the increasing snow and ice. We are investing a lot in coal and nuclear power plants, especially nuclear in order to have a reliable source of heating power to keep our cities livable. Ice Ages and Global Warming came and went even before man appeared, they're all caused by nature and by nature alone, not by man!

[KarlBonner1982]

At 3:15:

He fails to mention that one of the main reasons behind Europe's income drop from 2005 to 2009 is the 2008 financial crisis. In so doing, he's committing a major scientific no-no: confusing correlation with causation.

[brian39900]

until we better understand the whole problem and identify factors, we shouldn't make any drastic laws. There is no reason we shouldn't conserve energy in the process. However, I fear part of the problem also is excess population and development , which are debatable. A" happy medium" is needed, without the politics.

[david222444]

Just had a great idea lets all have co2 filled central hearing systems lol

[rugbyguy59]

And numb nuts is making his projections for the next two decades by...?

Yes, the solar minimum we have been going through has likely delayed warming but the planet has still warmed over the decade, satellites and ground measurements agree. Given low solar activity why didn't we see a year by year temperature drop? Why, because CO2 kept the temp up despite it all.

Now we are seeing more warming. As a real skeptic, Michaels, warned, if you go around saying the earth is cooling you'll look stupid

[BryanLim14]

@rugbyguy59 so you're saying ~400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is keeping global temps up? that is fascinating but rather overblown "science". you know what amazes me is you warmers talk like you know 150% on how the dynamics of the atmosphere & its influential links work, while we skeptics only humbly request a slowdown & more research to be done in a field which we can never forecast its conditions with at least 90% accuracy 24-hours out. we might be "stupid" but at least we're not absolutes.

[rugbyguy59]

@BryanLim14 If you think I act like I know 150% of the atmospheric dynamics, it's because you think predicting the weather has something to do with projecting climate trends. A true skeptic would know they are very different things. Why slow down and do more research on what we know? Just because "skeptics" can't be bothered to examine the whole story? There's lots more to find out but we know CO2 & its feedbacks are behind warming in the past 3-4 decades. Time to move onto what is in question

[BryanLim14]

@rugbyguy59 you've just proven you've completely no idea on how computer models yield their products. the fastest supercomputers are still "dumb" as they only resolve the variables that WE have as its inputs. the problem is we don't know exactly how climate fluctuations work based on microscale atmospheric dynamics, solar output, geomagnetic fluctuations, ocean-atmosphere influences (oscillatory changes impact upon already-existing synoptic pressure systems eg. Bermuda High, Aleutian Low etc)...

[rugbyguy59]

@BryanLim14 True we don't know enough about how a warming planets climate will change specific places on the planet. However we know more than enough to see that the planet is warming and we are primarily the reason. We can measure solar output and we know it cannot explain the warming. Geomag may affect cloud formation but there is no correlation for the past 30 years. While there may be other affects nothing is going to stop the well established effects of CO2.

[david222444]

@rugbyguy59 co2 has no well established effects , it is a vital gas for plant growth (food production and o2 production) . Its time you stopped living in the past . The earth has now entered a cooling phase . A Dalton minimum has been forecast. The oceans cover 70 percent of the planet and are now cooling.

[rugbyguy59]

@david222444 The radiative effects of CO2 are bedrock science. If you, or someone else, can right a paper that demonstrates CO2 has no greenhouse gas effect, or even a minimal effect that isn't crucial, you should do it. You'd win a Nobel Prize. I'm sorry but anyone who says CO2 has no well established effects is ignorant of basic science.

Sunspot activity is on the rise but even if we entered a Maunder Minimum Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010) found GHGs would keep the planet warming.

[david222444]

@rugbyguy59 anything radiates when heated dude.

[rugbyguy59]

@david222444 Based on that reply, I get the feeling you really haven't got a clue about what you're talking about. Yes things radiate when heated but some act as insulators and others as conductors of energy. CO2 slows the rate heat is radiated away from the planet.

[david222444]

@rugbyguy59 yes and the big yellow thing in the sky that supplies the heat is going into a grand minimum and the big ocean called the pacific is cooling . simples.

[rugbyguy59]

@david222444 Feulner, G. et al. (2010) found that even a grand minimum won't stop warming due to GHGs.

If you're going to mention ocean temp then you should look at all studies on the topic not just cherry pick one that suits your purpose. Do you get your info from those idiots Monkton and Watt? There was one study with very selective data selection that found short term cooling but loads of others show warming. Read Lyman (2010) which looks at a wide range of estimates of ocean temp.

[david222444]

@rugbyguy59 Feuner G et al. and Mistic Meg. You are way behind the curve. Try tarrot cards they are a lot cheaper than computer models. 0.03% co2 in the atmosphere will not offset this it is called a sense of perspective.

[rugbyguy59]

@david222444 Computer models? None of this requires computer models. If you don't use the latest science what do you use? Mystic Meg and Tarot cards?

Increasing CO2 by 39%, the key GHG, is very significant. The GHE keeps our planet 33oC warmer than it would be without and all the greenhouse gases are tiny fraction of the atmosphere. The most abundant, H2O vapour, is dependent mainly on CO2 levels.

Perspective means you see the whole picture not just a blinkered version of it.

[david222444]

@rugbyguy59 look i will try to make it simple for you. Triple the insulation in your house(co2) then turn down the heating(grand minimum). Your house will cool.!

[rugbyguy59]

@david222444 Gee, you're so smart. Look at you think of something no trained scientist has ever thought about.

Except they have and they've done the math. Even if a grand minimum occurred CO2 emissions would overcome it in 7 years. (Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010) The reality is if you turn down the heat a bit (and even a grand min. is just a bit) and increased your insulation significantly your house will warm. It's basic lower your heating costs 101. Home owners do it all the time

You make this easy

[david222444]

@rugbyguy59 your last comment disobeys the first law if thermodynamics!

[rugbyguy59]

@david222444 How? Where is energy being created or destroyed? It is simply being trapped more effectively.

If I significantly slow the radiation of heat from my home (heat produced by converting gas, electricity, or some other source) I can warm my house with less heat. With the sun it's the same. The energy comes in as visible light, which isn't impacted by GHGs and is trapped by those GHGs when it tries to leave as IR.

[BryanLim14]

@rugbyguy59 if you can explain just one out of the many questions being posed in this ongoing discussion, you'd do the entire scientific community a WHOLE lot of favor. simply putting the heavy burden on a "poison" gas called CO2 is ridiculously immature if not foolish. Skeptics do not bother to examine the whole story? Look who's asking more questions for a change Mr. Smarty Pants. You simply just read the news but don't bother to study the field itself. Try harder coz i'm a meteorology major.

[rugbyguy59]

@BryanLim14 Poison gas? CO2 is not a poison gas it's a greenhouse gas. Constantly asking the same question or a slightly varied question about a well understood concept doesn't advance science. Eliminate those questions and the deniers barely ask any questions at all. I don't read the media much. They get it wrong more than they get it right. I read the work of climate scientists and scientists who examine both sides of each perspective.

[BryanLim14]

@rugbyguy59 and for your info, climate projections especially for the past 3-4 decades ago based heavily upon meteorological work. we are the ones running around collecting, surveying and improving the quality of our data for both meteorological & climate purposes as far as we've started collecting them. no even try lecturing me the difference between weather & climate coz i've studied both of them. even your "2500" scientists/consensus has fallen, go do more check-ups before you brag...geez...

[rugbyguy59]

@BryanLim14 There is difference between weather data and climate patterns. Yes they use weather data but that has to be looked at in terms of long term trends. You may be studying this but you don't get the obvious difference. As for the consensus, which of the National Associations of Science that support the IPCC conclusions has retracted? Which of the discipline based associations have retracted? Name one that disagrees with the IPCC. The consensus is more solid than it has ever been.

[danbrdoober]

It's just nature

[GarciaDavid1979]

I think everyone is aproaching the problem the wrong way. Wether or not CO2 or manking cause global warming we can still agree that there is no need for excess pollution and greenhouse gases. I dont think we should establish a carbon-trade system. there are people now driving around in SUV's selling their own private carbon credits and making a living out of it just because people feel guilty that they took a plastic bag home when picking up milk.

[JeanLouie1106]

I find this so hard to believe, the sun has in fact been getting cooler? whats the explanation for rising sea temperatures, coral reefs that are bleeching due to raised temps, weather changes, rapidly melting glaciers centuries old, ice caps and shelves breaking apart, and global records of hotter and hotter days?

[pSychOAtDawn]

So with these chemtrails they alter the weather? I live in Texas and it's fuckin hoooooot!!! 104 has been the average temperature for the last two weeks. Does the government do this to make us believe that it's global warming?

[doobsta]

No change in pollution. CHECK!

Decrease in standard of living. CHECK!

Sounds like the goobermint is pitching maddof type investments...

[mynyms]

chemtrails

[nameofthepen]

The media, the banksters and the politicians are all scammers. Time for some frontier justice.

[JiveDadson]

Note to man in suit: Learn the difference between "jive" and "jibe."

[sugarpuddin88]

I swear this truly is the funniest thing I have ever read - Check it out:

The proposal -- frequently referred to as a cap-and-trade plan -- would establish an emissions trading system that would permit companies that emit fewer greenhouse gases than they are allowed to sell the excess portion to companies that exceed their allowances

I can't wait to see what happens after the September Bank Holiday!

[Michaelwiseguy]

Global warming is not your fault and neither is global cooling, Blame it on the Sun.

[SaintEntreri]

SCIENCE