Many scientists have theorized that it is variations in solar activity as opposed to variations in a trace gas (CO2) that is responsible for alterations in the earth's climate. Graphs of solar activity seem to correlate very well with changes in global temperatures (as opposed to the CO2 graph that often shows temperatures rising BEFORE the increase in CO2 which suggests we may have cause and effect reversed). Recent observations of solar activity suggest we may be entering a solar minimum (Maunder Minimum). In the past, such a decrease in solar activity has been associated with a large decrease in average global temperature. The last such minimum was known as the Little Ice Age. I just pray we don't implement any economy killing "reforms" to address "global warming" just in time for the natural cooling to start. If we can avoid any such "reforms", global warming theory will be well and truly debunked. But if we're stupid enough to implement the reforms, not only will it destroy our economy; the global warming activists will claim they were right PS If any mods would be so kind as to correct my misspelling of "imminent" in title, I'd appreciate it.
No one, to my knowledge, has proposed that boosts in CO2 caused or started most of the past warmings on earth. No one has the "cause and effect" in the order you claim is mistaken, in the first place. Everyone agrees that solar flux variation - with various causes, from orbital congruences to sunspot frequency trends - is responsible for much of the temperature variation of the past. And few if any of the changes proposed in response to the recent buildup of CO2 in the air (a "trace gas" that is the primary source of the carbon constituent of the biomass of the planet, and a good deal of the rock) are "economy killing". Most of them, if adopted a few years ago, would have been of great benefit to the US economy right now, for example.
Well, I don't know too much about variability of the sun's output of heat--but I know that if the Greenland Icecap collapses, we're going to be dealing with the effects of the failure of the Gulf Stream, which warms the east coast of the USA, as well as the British Isles and Scandinavia. When that happens, you're very definitely going to get some global cooling. Besides, the reduction in ice-cover on the Arctic Ocean will lead to much heavier snowfalls in North America and northern Europe, because of the increased evaporation from the surface of the ice-free arctic.
Won't it mean a significant (tens of feet) sea-level rise? How much of Manhattan, or downtown London (or any other city built around a harbour or estuary, will need to be evacuated? If Greenland or the West Antarctic sheets collapse and raise sea levels, my guess is: pretty much the end of civilisation as we know it, never mind the Gulf Stream. Where will the millions of people be evacuated to?
mad ok your theorising that we are entering a cooling phase When do you predict this cooling should have\will start? Im interested seeing as Australia has had the Biggest heat wave on record in the last few months and the longest DROUGHT on record. Inspite of a la nina at least 2 years ago we are STILL in drought having only JUST recived the flooding rains that we need and only in NSW and Queensland The murry is all dried up for the most part and we are getting non of the rains we need to fill the dams in Victoria or SA So I ask again when should we be expecting this cold spell to come into effect?
It's tough when you're talking about cycles that extend over centuries. As the article said, it could be some time in the next couple years or the year 2020. Certainly, no one disputes the fact that the earth has been going thru changes in climate forever. Something must have caused them. I think solar variation is the likely cause. The question is, can anthropogenic CO2 actually overwelm the natural cycle? I doubt it. It just so happens that the period of rapidly climbing CO2 output coincided with a period of natural warming (to some extent). The correlation is not perfect, as the average temperature actually dropped for a significant period of the 20th century despite a steady increase in CO2 output. But, really, industrialization had to coincide with either a period of warming or cooling. Either way, industrialization was going to get the blame. As evidenced by the concerns over global cooling in the 70's and the proposed solution (cut back on emmisions). After all, this entire global warming hoopla is over a variation of 1 degree over a period of 100 years. How many centuries have seen a variation of less than 1 degree, I wonder?
I've heard of no suggested remedy for global warming that would not increase the cost of energy. While increased energy expenditures might help whatever industry is providing the cleaner energy source; the extra money spent on energy is no longer available for other things and the effects of this work their way thru the entire economy (as we're seeing now with oil/gas). Most estimates I've seen of the effect of CO2 abatement run into the trillions per year. That's trillions of dollars no longer available for other things. Please explain exactly how that is good for the economy?
None of the efficiency improvements and waste eliminations would increase the cost of energy. The expansion of research and establishment into solar and wind and such would not increase the cost of energy - and would keep the money in the local economy, helping reduce the large damping effect of sending so much of our money out of the economy to be piled up elsewhere. The evidence is, it has. The theory says - based on calculations incorporating the measured CO2 increase - that it should, and yet more. The doubt comes from what, exactly ? Ordinary prudence is one thing, but the speculation that boosting CO2 by 50% and more will have no serious effects is without evidentiary or theoretical backing. The evidence is more that the period of rapidly climbing CO2 coincided with a period of "natural cooling", which it overwhelmed - imperfectly, of course. On a global scale, all of them except this one, I think. I don't think there is a precedent for this, for sure - some possibilities a long time ago, blurred in the resolution.
There are a number of ways the climate can destabilize. And there are a few ways it can remain stable. Its teeter totting right now. This is a rather large subject, because it involves so much uncertainty. The worst destabilization is a polar shift. Talk about being... (Note: didn't use the word fucked). I won't go into the hows, just the part were we'd be all... The next dreadful possibility is almost as bad. Nuclear thermodynamic Winters and Summers. The north would be an frigid cap of ice and the south a blazing desert. Nuff said. The least dreadful is a slow stable shift of climate patterns. It gets worse, but gives us more time to find a means to stability. We clearly do not have stability (that is, we aren't in control of the climate), no one with any common sense would even dare say otherwise. So...it could stabilize by humanity collaborating to find the connective solution. Technology would have to adapt, as the people who utilize it would also have to adapt. I would like to use my mind to find the best solution!
All of that is fine, I support it. But I oppose any Kyoto Treaty type caps on carbon output. You're telling me that no previous century showed a 1 degree variation in temperature? Do you have anything to back that up?
Negative evidence: there's no record of any such increase in such a short time. But then such records are sparse and uncertain for not so long ago. Here is the record for the Gulf of Maine over the past thousand years - this record is for a local area of great change, therefore presumably more rapidly variable than a global average, and it covers the Medieval Warm Period as well as the Little Ice Age, giving four transitions usually thought of as unusually rapid, but we see (scroll down for the graph) that nothing nearly as rapid as one degree C per century is evident at any time in the past ten centuries: http://research.usm.maine.edu/gulfofmaine-census/biodiversity/geography-characteristics/geology/ Positive evidence: the total changes occurring in the past, averaged out over the span of their occurrence, are nowhere near one degree per century, on average. But they may have gone boom and bust, with periods of extremely rapid increase to fine for the resolution of our measures. The various ice cores argue against that - they have pretty good resolution. And there are several problems with the concept. For example, if the change is measured over just one year at the beginning and one year at the end, an anomalous year (such as the year after Krakatoa) can prang your evidence. So a more reasonable view would be to compare averages, find general trends, fit slopes, and calculate rates. Regardless of method, one degree (that's Centigrade) per century is very, very rapid. It needs explanation. Simply saying "it's natural" does not explain it.
The fact that the earths axis tilit moves 1 to 1.4 Degrees per 100 years is enoguh to cause continous change in weather patterns. That amounts to say 90 degree in 9,000 years or 6,428.5 years. So the north pole faced the sun 6,650 years to 4,750 years about the time of the building of the pyramids, which is correlated to the entrance of the pryamids facing the sun. The motion of the earth has changed considerablly since the time of Imohtep the builder of the the first pyramids, at which time the earths wobble was a triangle causing the sun to appear to move in a triangle and being the resulting reason for Imohtep to build a pryamid structure. The earth is now seen to wobble in a circle, causing are seasons. oveer time we can exspect to see earth rotating simular to that of the planet Neptune as long as the axis continues to move. As the earth tilt changes 0.691 to 0.967 miles per year you can exspect the weather to change by the same interval in relevance, in ten years thats almost 10 miles difference. Appearntly the possible tomb of Imohtep may have been found recently in Eygpt, Archologist are waiting for the next digging season to open the tomb, which may give the world new insights into the building of the pryamids as this man build several pyramids, it may also give us insight to astronomy of the time and from their give insights in to the condtions of the earth DwayneD.L.Rabon
Well, here is a little addition to the figures for the motion of the earth causing for a chnage in weather, shoudl there be some one interested in marking the change in the earths motions form the time of the pyramids to current. It appears that during the time of the pyramids construction that the motion of the earth, its wobble, was in a triangle, bringing about the orginal reason for the construction of the pryamids; the wobble cause the sun appeared to have a motion of a triangle. The motion of the earth 21.6 degree along two sides and 17.35 degrees along the one side forming the triangle motion of the sun. it is from this motion that the current motion of earth on it 23.5 degree axis tilt developed forming our current seasons. Appearantly from the motion it developed from a triangle into a oval and then are current circular motion of today. How this actually causes weather or seasons in ancient times would be interesting. It would have to be assumed that there are at least three season, two of near the same length of time and one of shorter duration. Where also the solar variation(motion of the sun) of season or angular change is equal to the distance form the base to the pinacle of the trianlge approximatly 20 degrees, which is less than half of our current solar variation change of 23.5 degreees in each hemisphere. so it therefore would appear as either fall or spring tempiture in one hemipshere of earth with a iceage in the other hemisphere. DwayneD.L.Rabon
I want to make this very clear- You do not understand how seasons work! Study this diagram very carefully and see if you can notice where you've gone so so wrong- http://www.ccastronomy.org/image_seasons.gif I suppose asking how you came to these conclusions is a wasted effort, am I right?
Yo! this is Melbourne, Australia reporting. Its been bloody cool during summer for some time, haven't had much 30+ degrees celcius days like we had a couple of years ago where almsot every day was over 27...now its 22-26 with nights going as low as 14.
hey another australianPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And a fellow melburnian no lessPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well guys, sorting out hte seasons seems a little difficult, for several reasons. It seems that the axis tilt changes, the axis travels 21.69 degrees in one directions, then 21.69 degrees in another direction forming the pincale/apexs of the triangle and then changes again in direction traveling 17.35 degrees to form the base of the triangle and completing the triangle. this motion occurs with the current north pole facing the sun in the time of the building of the pryamids, presently the current north pole is 23.5 degrees from being linear (streight up and down). So it means that the axis has changed from facing the sun to nearly being 90 degrees from the sun, being 23.5 degrees from completeing that 90 degree change. The current earth axis has traveled approximatly 66.5 degrees from a direct facing of the sun. As a estimate the earths axis was always at least a average of 10 degrees (at points 5 degrees) from the center during the time of the building of the pryamids meaning that when the earths axis traveled the lines of the triangle the axis was tilited at least 10 degrees from the center of the triangle or 10 degrees from being directly facing the sun point on, where at the center of the triangle the axis would face the sun point on. Because of this 10 degrees should be subtracted from the 66.5 degrees of motion which then gives 56.5 degrees as a more accuracte reading of the motion of the axis from the time of the building of the pyramids. A interesting note is that the motion of the moon cross's just about 10 degrees of the earths surface, 5 degrees north and 5 degrees south. (Lunar inclination of orbit.) Given that the axis tilt was 10 degrees from the direct at the time of the building of the pyramids, at which time the motion of the earth axis tilt was in a triangle. the earths axis tilt motion had to change with each earth progession change of degree north, changing from a triangle into a oval and then into a circle, being in complete circular motion when the axis reached a 45 degree tilt. the current earth tilt has changed 21.5 degrees since then, over that 21.5 degree change the earth tilt has chnaged from circular to a oval which should be the current pattern of motion of todays axis tilt motion. Given the motions of change in axis tilt, there seems to be some variables in seasons that would exist to change the interpitation of reasech data collected on earths weather patterns, and histrorical weather patterns. Using the current measurments of change in axis tilt, we get a motion chnage of 1 to 1.4 Degrees of motion per 100 years. Which tells us that the from the time of the buildiing of the pyramids when the suns motion appeard to be in a triangluar motion in the sky until the time when the sun appeared to form a circular motion in the sky at a axis tilt of 45 degrees, it took 3,500 years to 2,500years. Also from the time of the suns circular motion in the sky to the current time of the oval motion it took 2,150 years to 1,536 years. In end if the rate of change remains the same without a increase we can exspect to see the sun move in the sky in a triangluar motion once again as seen by the ancient eyptians in 964 to 1,360 years. When the sun moves in a circular motion in the sky it marks the mid point, where is that mid point in human histroy it appears to be about the time of the birth of Jesus Christ, or about the time of the building of the Roman Collosium. My how the seasons must have changed,over the years. DwayneD.L.Rabon
