BIG things are happening Sun-wise. The longer Solar Cycle 24 is delayed, the weaker should it be. Thus, it is more likely day by day – while Cycle 24 remains in deferral – that we are entering the next Little Ice Age cold period (Landscheidt Minimum1).
In 2004, NASA predicted an extra-powerful Cycle 24 starting in 2006, far stronger than modest Cycle 23 – thus supplementing IPCC’s projected people-driven warming. As you might expect, there are very few people outside the ‘mainstream’ consensus policed by Royal Society, IPCC, NASA – and propagated by the great journals Science and Nature – with the expertise to challenge NASA on this esoteric topic. But happily, there are some.
The collective angular momentum of the giant outer planets drives the Sun’s highly-irregular orbit about the centre-of-mass of the solar system (as Newton knew); and the timing (albeit, not yet the magnitude) of consequential solar variability can therefore be predicted. By “variability” I don’t mean in total solar irradiance; because TSI varies only by fractions of a percent. I am referring to the outflow of magnetised plasma from the Sun – which can vary by orders of magnitude at timings from quotidian to millennial.
Sadly – and surprisingly – scientists are herd-animals. They revere consensus; and hence, fight like tigers to protect the dominant scientific paradigm from new and threatening ideas. For instance, Landscheidt first sent the draft of his ground-breaking paper to Nature, where it was rejected as “of insufficient general interest”- without even going out for peer-review. Hence, I was delighted when a ‘Mainstream’ source (Livingston & Penn, National Solar Observatory at Tucson Arizona – link follows) provided an observation-based analysis – not just another computer-simulation – accepting the concept of a 300-year warming-trend from the “quiet Sun” of the deadly Maunder Minimum cold period, to the “hyperactive Sun” of the benign Modern Era warm period. Crucially, this (beneficial) warming – blamed by climatologists on people – appears over.
Of course, no-one KNOWS whether the world will warm or cool during coming decades. However, the longer the Sun stays asleep now, the more likely it becomes that the decade of gentle cooling since 1998 will continue – and worsen. Surely, therefore, it is too early for policy-makers to “pick winners”. If indeed the world does enter another Little Ice Age cold period, the people-driven-warming beat-up will be over-trumped by a far more serious problem – external influences beyond our control, leading to global cooling. World food-production would be endangered.
Clearly, Australia’s policy-makers deserve a broader spectrum of advice than the dogmatic and self-serving promotion by CSIRO and Met Bureau of the implausible hypothesis that people are the primary driver of global climate – with only more and more warming ahead.
Bob Foster
fosbob AT bigpond.com
**********
Theodor Landscheidt 2003, “New Little Ice Age instead of global warming?”, Energy & Environment v.14 no.2&3, pp.327-50. See: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/Landscheidt-1.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer
did you know that all references to Landscheidt at Climateaudit get censored by Steve McIntyre? Even he has his limits for non-science.
“the decade of gentle cooling since 1998” – how many fools can there be, who will pretend not to understand the pointlessness of statements like this? The supply seems endless. The decade you refer to has been warmer than any other decade in the instrumental record.
Apart from that irritating point of stupidity, this whole post is simply meaningless. You seem to imply that solar activity is driven by the giant planets – nonsense. You seem to think that a long solar cycle must mean the next one will be weak – highly speculative. You believe that low solar activity can offset the warming due to increasing greenhouse gases – not so. All that you’ve written could be replaced with a simple “I think it’s going to get colder”, with no loss of information.
RW, which part of “gentle cooling” can you not get your tiny brain around? Any temperature that is recorded after a peak is a “cooling”, moron. So the words “gentle cooling” would seem to be a level of accurate description that is completely beyond your limited comprehension.
And do us all a courtesy and bone up on solar cycles, you sad doofus. The longer the delay in the start of new solar activity the more likely it will be a weak cycle. So nice and slowly, just for you, the absence of activity between solar cycles does not constitute an extension of the previous cycle. The driver of weak cycles is not the length of the previous cycle, as you appear to believe, but rather, the length of the absence of activity between cycles.
So run along now, thats a good fellow, and come back when your retention skills are, at least, above 30%.
Jen – looking for a prediction to pin on my wall here.
So we have a title of “The cooling has begun”
But then …
“Of course, no-one KNOWS whether the world will warm or cool during coming decades.”
Then we have “gentle cooling” – but also “Ice Ages”
Sounds like a few bob each way at Randwick ?
Jibber jabber RW; since 1998 figure 2(b);
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.1650v3.pdf
And this dance will not suit you with your 2 left feet and both of them in your mouth;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/offset:-347/scale:0.008/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend
So you think Landscheidt is science, Cohenite?
“And this dance will not suit you with your 2 left feet and both of them in your mouth;”
Why do people hate 1997 so much :(.
SJT,
I love 1997. Why don’t you post the trends from the major indices from 1997 to current.
When you do, tell us how close to 2c per century it is!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh, but I forget. A trend must be at least 30 years or it is meaningless in the Climate world!!
Wonder how Hansen could make such a big deal about a 10 year trend back in 1988?!?!?!?!?
I started reading on the Landscheidt Minimum. To work against the skeptical postion of global cooling it may be possible that the sun slightly cools and the earth’s temperature rises due to GHG’s. This would truly reinforce AGW or MMGW theory. This whole global cooling thing could back fire on skepticism.
I have been reading on some science sites that the sun has been slightly cooling. 2008 warmer than any year 1990 backwards and many of the years in 1990 this will put many more nails into the skeptic coffin.
Good news is they have discovered solar cycle 4a, the one they lost just before the Dalton Minimum. This brings greater clarity and eliminates the ‘phase catastrophe’.
So I pose the question, if solar cycle 3 was an ultra short one at 9.2 years, much the same as solar cycle 22 at 9.6 years, where does that leave us? Just to let you know Jen, you’re on the money.
Luke, there has been a gentle cooling and a mini ice age has begun. A blank sun should be of concern, but if global dimming is real, as shown earlier by the Israelis and Americans after 9/11, then Albert Gore will have to give up his jet. Such fatuous behaviour should not go unpunished.
Forgot the link
http://www.lowell.edu/users/jch/sss/blog/?p=799
In response to Roger Underwood’s post about bushfire warnings, it’s not only because he was kind enough to call me “a wise anthropologist” (a prime oxymoron, in the eyes of many !) that I endorse all that he has said.
My position is influenced by a bit more than 70 years of fighting fires on 3 continents. a hectic half of them with Victoria’s CFA, by havng been burnt out on Ash Wednesday, and by several years of research into the behaviour of both bushfires and people when they meet. I’ve done consultancies for CFA into major bushfires and spent several years as a member of a group that devised, established and has operated a bushfire alert system in a particularly fireprone part of the very fire-prone Dandenongs where terrain and dense, tall forest preclude the usual visual warnings of the proximity of a fire.
My views, and the arguments for them are expressed in my submission to the Royal Commission and appear on its web site (click “view submissions”). Both my opinions and arguments are wholly consistent with what Roger has written.
As we all know, bushfires vary in their severity. Informed and thoughtful use of the Bureau’s twice-daily forecasts of forest and grass fire danger ratings can give a useful and generally reliable indication of their severity. It is beyond question that, in a fire of anything like the fierceness of that of Black Saturday, many warnings of less than a couple of hours’ notice will only amount to intimation of the means of the recipients’ deaths. In any shorter span of time they are unlikely to be able to grab whatever they regard as essential (the rest of the family, pets, documents, photos, little Johnny’s Playstation, little Lucy’s iPod….etc), pack them into the car, ute… whatever, then decide on the escape route, and thread their way through the ensuing traffic to safety from a fire that is advancing rapidly and erratically. THAT’S HOW IT HAPPENS.
Any fool can tell people WHAT to do (e.g. “stay and defend, or evacuate”). The trick lies in telling them HOW to do it.
All the technology is very helpful, and all strength and praise to those who devise and use it. But none of it is of any use at all unless the fire-threatened public knows how to interpret fire danger ratings and how to respond to the warnings. Ash Wednesday, Black Saturday, Canberra…. all the major bushfires showed that not nearly enough people had that knowledge and/or the ability to apply it. The really difficult, and desperately-needed technology is how to recognise and prepare for, and to enable people to make appropriate and effective responses to the threat of bushfire. It’s about how to prevent the fires, how to mitigate their intensity when they happen, when and how to defend, and when and how to evacuate.
The means are known. They lie in such programmes as Bushfire Blitz and Community Fireguard. But they must be expertly and rigorously applied – AND MAINTAINED. It’s time-consuming for everybody, costs a lot of labour for which $$$ must be found and, frankly (I’ve done it !) can be pretty tiresome. But without that, all the yew-bewt electronics, politicians’ posturing and fire authorities’ derriere-decor will do nothing to reduce the number of casualties and extent of loss.
“Wonder how Hansen could make such a big deal about a 10 year trend back in 1988?!?!?!?!?”
Yes its amazing that Hansen was already making opportunistic apocalyptic predictions after only ten years of warming. All of the younger generation of climate scientists and their acolytes since the 1980s have therefore had this underlying green saviour paradigm pushing them along for their entire careers. It is unsurprising that their product is corrupt.
I think it is about at the stage where the science done by the scientists, if that is what you would call them, is basically irrelevant. We know in advance what the politically motivated product is going to be. Fortunately for us, the ultimate answer to the question of AGW resides in the behaviour of the earth’s climate, which of course does not care one way or the other about what any of us believe.
The length of this solar minimum should be 40 years, similar to the Dalton and Oort. A worse case scenario would be the 60 year long Wolf solar minimum, which came off the back of the Medieval solar max (1075-1240).
Most importantly, the effects are uneven. In 1788, when Arthur Philip was setting up camp in Port Jackson, they were suffering under the strain of a very severe El Nino. Droughty weather.
Meanwhile, back home in the northern hemisphere winter, there was ‘a very severe frost the latter end of the year, by which the Thames was so completely frozen over, that Mrs Porteus and myself walked over it from Fulham to Putney.’
In January 1789 the Thames ‘was completely frozen over and people walk to and fro across it with fairground booths erected on it, as well as puppet shows and roundabouts.’
Not a volcanic eruption within cooeee to blame it on.
“Any temperature that is recorded after a peak is a “cooling”, moron”
Wow, what a retard you are, Ian Mott. How much do you know about statistics, exactly? On the basis of this statement, it looks like the answer is “nothing at all”.
“…..it may be possible that the sun slightly cools and the earth’s temperature rises due to GHG’s [non sequitur]. This would truly reinforce AGW or MMGW theory….” Jeff Green August 31st, 2009 at 12:52 pm.
The Earth’s temperature has been effectively stable for over 10 years, despite a 5.5% increase in CO2.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/to:2010/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/to:1997/trend
What if the Earth’s temperature does not rise and remains in long term stasis or falls?
Does that, in any way, put any more nails in the AGW hypothesis — that human GHG emissions are the overwhelming driver of climate?
It’s not a competition, a scientific hypothesis does not ‘win’ by default, i.e because of a lack of any other satisfactory hypothesis any more than a person can be justly convicted of a crime, because a lack of any other possible suspects.
It’s the AGW hypothesis that has ‘built up a head of steam’ and is on trial, not any of the other hypotheses.
For what it’s worth, I couldn’t give two hoots one way or another what drives the climate, if my standard of living was not being significantly threatened by government policy (any government) based on possibly flawed science.
SJT wrote:
“did you know that all references to Landscheidt at Climateaudit get censored by Steve McIntyre?”
SJT, do you know how to use a search engine? Do you know what the word “all” means? I got this link from scroogle. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=820
Yes, Landscheidt is mentioned at climateaudit. What have you been smoking?
SJT
Bit of a lunatic statement of yours, no? Incidentally perhaps you and your new found mates might care to counter the excellent geological evidence falsifying plate tectonics I just posted on my web site?
Landscheidt’s work I have not studied but from Bob Foster’s summary it seems Landscheidt noted a physical connection between the solar system planets and the Sun’s behaviour that occurs as outflows of magnetised plasma from the Sun.
Magnetised plasma is simply another term for “electricity”.
Landscheidt would have been unaware of the possibility that what he was observing and recording was most likely the overt physical effects, explained in terms of Newton’s Laws, of an enormous electrical system, but without realising the presence of those electrical effects.
A mundane analogy could be observing the fluctuations in light emitted by the headlights of a car without realising that the fluctuations were being modulated by changes in engine revolutions driving the electric generator inside the car but hidden from view.
The mistake usually made is assuming the surficial effects are the principal drivers of the system.
Logic is a terrible task master. It requires changing hard core beliefs when presented with contradictory evidence. However, in some cases one jumps at a seemly wonderful new theory when it seems to answer the problem. Take plate tectonics for instance. Evolutionists were required to invent land bridges between land masses separated by hundreds of miles of ocean. Plate tectonics seemed to answer that problem. Yet, with the new solution, we have postulated an Ice Ball Earth, which seems to be accepted as gospel. Louis has shown a crack in the plate tectonics theory, which in turn does falsify part of that theory, which in turn suggests something which appears radical on the surface, but logical. Thank you, Louis. Its a pity more scientists do not bow to logic.
Louis Hissink,
“… the excellent geological evidence falsifying plate tectonics I just posted on my web site?”
Louis, could you please provide a link to your web site? Thanks.
Creationists now. Is this what you were hoping to achieve, Jennifer?
Allen Ford,
Here you go, (Louis H)
http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/default.aspx?sa=299034754
Marcus,
Thanks for that – lunch time here in Perth so I only discovered the request from Allen Ford.
Do I get the impression SJT is calling me a creationist now? Well I think he is, but it’s very hard making sense of anything a soliloquist says, since it’s all self addessed.
Comment from: Louis Hissink September 1st, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Do I get the impression SJT is calling me a creationist now?
I think he/she is not calling you a creationist, but to WilliMc:
Comment from: WilliMc September 1st, 2009 at 2:13 am
Most times, SJT comments are erratic.
WilliMc
Thanks for your kind thoughts – though my opposition to Plate Tectonics started during the middle 1970’s when I was studying post grad and commented that subduction zones, being zones of compression, shouldn’t have normal faults. The geophysicists could not answer that issue.
In any case the work by the late E.S.T. O’Driscoll on tectonic lineaments that could be traced into the oceanic areas, and which Dong Choi also pointed to, is quite incompatible with plate tectonic mechanisms.
The general view is that there is no physical mechanism operating inside the earth that can power plate tectonics.
Another problem for PT theory was mentioned in the latest AIG News downloadable on the http://www.aig.org.au where the serious problem of convection cell geometry is pointed out.
A strong contender to explaining the observations is Surge Tectonics that I know little about by Bruce Leybourne (successor to Smoot) has written extensively on, It was initiated by Meyerhoff by the way.
And now the discovery of continental crust in the oceanic floors is cited a the final proof. Well, not so fast folks, dredging up of continental rocks from the bottom of the abyssal plains and what not does not mean it’s SIAL crust down there. These could be large accumulations of gravels or deposits of continental material eroded off the land masses by means few agree on. Remember that there exist many isolated large blocks of rock on the Russian Steppes which are difficult to explain apart from being deposited on land by tsunamis.
But the parallel to AGW lies not in the actual practice of the scientific method, but from applying the scientific method to a fundamental belief that hasn’t been empirically verified, but agreed by consensus to be “reasonably” true – the Lyellian disease as I like to call it.
In terms of plate tectonics the geophysicists discovered spreading ridges, and yes they are spreading, no doubt about that, but then keeping the earth volume static this new crust formed at the ridges then had to go somewhere – and so subduction zones came into being. The error was in the assumption that the earth’s volume remained static over time.
There’s lots more to this than I could post here, let alone post on my website during the short amount of time I have after work, but while PT is running its last gasps, there isn’t anything yet to replace it with. There is Earth Expansion ideas, there is Surge Tectonics, and there is the newer idea of planetary sized electrodynamic machining ideas which are simply too radical at present, but that idea is associated with the Plasma Universe Model. It too has problems as well, I should add.
Nasif,
How the heck can SJT conclude from WilliMc’s post he is a creationist?
Well, Louis, I think SJT deduced it from the next fragment of WilliMc’s post:
“Evolutionists were required to invent land bridges between land masses separated by hundreds of miles of ocean. Plate tectonics seemed to answer that problem. Yet, with the new solution, we have postulated an Ice Ball Earth, which seems to be accepted as gospel. Louis has shown a crack in the plate tectonics theory, which in turn does falsify part of that theory…” (Emphasis is mine)
SJT conclusions are really unpredictable 🙂
Both Australia and New Zealand have had their warmest Augusts on record.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/warm-aussie-winds-take-the-chill-off-nz-20090901-f6kx.html
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=aus&season=08&ave_yr=0
While here in Perth we have been experiencing a rather cold, wet and miserable August. Notice this is not mentioned in the MSM? Only when it’s hot does it bolster the AGW litany but when it contradicts the litany, Pious Silence.
Nasif,
Hmmm, well, I also thought SJT “might” have concluded that but it’s such a long shot that I took the easier explanation and assumed he was referring to me. But then I should have known better – his posts directed at me usually cause me to have to get towel to drymyself from all the froth and spray – and since this was a dry comment, it could not have been meant for me.
Louis – southwest Australia was warmer than average http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=meananom&period=daily&area=nat and average to drier than average http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=decile&period=daily&area=nat
Well I hope Bob Foster is wrong. For the past 500 million years the GAT was seven degrees higher than now. The GAT was five degrees higher during the last four interglacials. The Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warmings were about three degrees higher. We are now abnormally cold we need more warmth! May the temperature rise and the CO2 go up. This will mean more rain and more plant life. Chrisgo you have it right the real threat is from taxes on the use of energy.
David,
“2009 Coldest Year on Record?
Nine months in a row of below normal temperatures in Saskatchewan!”
Where are we going to search for the next warmest and coldest, and which will you take notice of?
Warmest or coldest?
You are jesting for sure!
My current understanding is that high clouds (aka cirrus) exert a net warming effect, whereas low clouds favor cooling.
Ok David, and here is June;
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=aus&season=06&ave_yr=0
Amanda…you’re right about the cirrus clouds.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/9/879/2009/acp-9-879-2009.html
Sorry if my choice of words confused the issue, I am not a creationist. It is not logical.
About some twenty years ago I did see a published paper which documented signs of glaciers in the southern part of the Sahara desert.which seemed to fit the Plate tectonics theory, which was relatively new. I do not recall the names or the date when they believed the glacier existed. I think it was some 200 million years old. It may support Louis’ theory of a wobbly earth.
And thank you, Louis, for the kind words.
WilliMc
Touche, Sir, and so SJT’s Hot Air Conveyance blurfs to the horizon.
But your memory of a paper documenting glaciers in the Sahara is of great interest. Please follow that lead and let us know of it.
Cheers
Louis
DHMO
“Well I hope Bob Foster is wrong. For the past 500 million years the GAT was seven degrees higher than now. The GAT was five degrees higher during the last four interglacials. The Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warmings were about three degrees higher. We are now abnormally cold we need more warmth! May the temperature rise and the CO2 go up. This will mean more rain and more plant life. Chrisgo you have it right the real threat is from taxes on the use of energy.”
That conclusion is based on what science?
Where were the samples taken?
Were those samples representative?
Etc etc.
Do not feel down in heart – your gut feelings are far more accurate than the deliberations of the administrative overseers.
Interesting stuff Louis….. I’ll reserve my opinion, but I am quite happy to chuck theories in the bin when the core sample says Billion instead of 200 million…. I’m sure there’ll be plenty of scientists that will be tempted to throw the sample in the bin instead, if they come up older than 200 mil…. But that’s what sorts the sheep from the scientists, ‘eh.
Louis:
I believe the publication I read was a translation of the following:
Deynoux, M. 1985, Les Glaciations du Sahara, La Recherche 16 (169) 986-997.
Good Hunting,
WilliMc
Louis,
I forgot to mention the time period — Ordrovician — in the neighborhood of 450 million years ago.
I also seem to recall mention was made of a pole in the southern part of the Sahara, but may be an error.
WilliMc
Louis,
I found what appears to be the original publication in the library:
Les formations glaciaires du Precambrien terminal et de la fin de l’Ordovicien en Afrique de l’Ouest : deux exemples de glaciation d’inlandsis sur une plate-forme stable
1980, Deynoux, Max.
Saint-Jerome, Marseille : Laboratoire de geologie dynamique, Faculte des sciences et techniques [1980]
I could make a copy for you, if you are unable to locate one closer to home.
WilliMc
Louis… I know that currently the Earth’s sea floor is spreading at a rate of ~8 cm per year. How one could draw a parallel the phenomenon described in your article Plate Tectonics Subducted with the Earth’s expansion? Is there any correlation?
I must confess that I need lots of information on this issue. Please, keep in mind that I got trained in standard structural geology and have to fit together some things from the biological stack and your theory.
Nasif
It is getting cooler, isn’t it?
I have noticed it, and friends and family in the Northeast and Midwest say the same thing.
It’s been one of the coolest Summers on record there (and here).
Bob,
Its all about cause and effect. The planets do not directly cause any significant climate phenomenon here on the Earth. Any claim of this nature (i.e. a direct connection) is simply psuedo-science. It does not matter whethere you are talking of an electromagnetic or gravitional (e.g. tidal) connection, the forces and energies involved are just far too small
to be of any significance.
The planetary configuration of the Jovian planets directly determines the Sun’s motion about the centre-of-mass the Solar System. It is possible that the level of the Sun’s activity
is governed or moderated by variations in the Sun’s differential rotation rate caused by a “spin-orbit” coupling between the Sun’s rotation rate and its motion about the Solar System’s Barycentre. Observational evidence exists for this “spin-orbit” coupling but, no one has yet come up with a valid physical mechanism to explain the observations.
Some people argue that it is the planetary-driven variations in the level of solar activity that are primarily responsible for long term (centenial) variations in the Earth’s climate and
this is probably to a ceratin degree. So in this way, we could say that the planetary
configuration of the Jovian planets is INDIRECTLY reponsible for natural variations in climate conditions here on Earth (at least on centenial time scales).
As you know, I believe that there is another indirect connection between the planetary motion and climate here on Earth. I have considerabe scientific evidence to support the
contention that variations in shape and orientation of the Moon’s orbit are synchronized with the Solar Inertial Motion (SIM) about the Solar System’s Barycentre. This synchronization has
come about because of the gravational interactions between the Sun, Earth and Moon over billions of years.
Convincing scientific evidence exists to show that the decadal varations in the shape and orientation of the Lunar orbit produce significant tidal dissipations in the deep oceans that provide close to half of the 2.7 T Watts of energy required to drive the overturning of cool deep water in the Earth’s oceans (the remaining energy is provided by the Earth’s winds).
I believe that it is this overturning of deep cool ocean that is responsible for setting the observed 60 year modulation of the Earth’s ocean temperatures, trade winds and the yearly rainfall provided by the Indian Summer Monsoon.
Note: The 60 year modulation is a natural product of the beat period between the solar
forcing period (i.e. the Hale Cycle ~ 22.3 years) and the dominant forcing period
produced by the assymetry in the SIM (~ 35.9 years):
(22.3 X 35.9) / (35.9 – 22.3) = 59.9 years
I have also shown that ENSO phenomenon, a climate system that has a great impact on Australia’s long-term cliamte and weather, is governed by extreme proxigean spring tides.
So, it would appear that the planetary configuration is responsible for the SIM, which over many billions of years has set, not only the variations in the level of solar activity, but also the
variations in the shape and orientation of the Lunar orbit, and hence the long-trem tidal dissipations in the Earth’s oceans.
And so, long-term changes (on centenial time scales) in the temperatures of the Earth’s
oceans are set by a combination of the two main forcing terms, lunar tidal dissipation (which affects up welling of cool deep ocean water) and the level of solar activity.
The important thing is that both of these forcing terms are synchronized with the SIM which
is being driven by the long-term planetary configuration of the Jovian planets.
Louis they are not my gut feeling most of what I said is from Ian Plimer and the scientific works to back it up have been well documented. Increased SST means more rain and increased CO2 encourages plant life. You talk much science here the opposing side is talking politics and dogma of a very much religious bent. I am with Chrisgo in that this is not an argument about the current doom and gloom it is more about how it will humans. Somali has already achieved a low emissions economy is that our future?
Oops
I am with Chrisgo in that this is not an argument about the current doom and gloom it is more about how it will affect humans.
dhmo, anybody who has worked closely on plant growth and limiting factors knows that CO2 isn’t normally a limiting factor for plant growth.
This means that increasing CO2 has no effect.
It would be like giving a plant extra water in the dark: the plant can’t use it, because light is the limiting factor.
So please treat with scepticism any claim that “increased CO2 encourages plant life”, because by and large this is not a true statement.
As far as “politics and dogma” go, there is indeed plenty of that on view in this non-scientific debate.
Facts: Nitrogen constitutes 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and trace gases just 1%. Water vapor is the most significant trace gas and the most significant green house gas (GHG). According to IPCC technical reports carbon dioxide is the least significant trace gas both by volume and by Global Warming Potential (GWP).
Question: What are the chances an infinitesimal (.04%) trace gas (CO2), essential to photosynthesis and therefore life on this planet, is responsible for runaway Global Warming?
Answer: Infinitesimal
Discussion: The IPCC now agrees. See the IPCC Technical Report section entitled Global Warming Potential (GWP). And the GWP for CO2? Just 1, (one), unity, the lowest of all green house gases (GHG). What’s more, trace gases which include GHG constitute less than 1% of the atmosphere. Of that 1%, water vapor, the most powerful GHG, makes ups 40% of the total. Carbon dioxide is 1/10th of that amount, an insignificant .04%. If carbon dioxide levels were cut in half to 200PPM, all plant growth would stop according to agricultural scientists. It’s no accident that commercial green house owner/operators invest heavily in CO2 generators to increase production, revenues and profits. Prof. Michael Mann’s Bristle cone tree proxy data (Hockey stick) proves nothing has done more to GREEN (verb) the planet over the past few decades than moderate sun-driven warming (see solar inertial motion) together with elevated levels of CO2, regardless of the source. None of these facts have been reported in the national media. Why?