Thread: Forget Global warming

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_pop...html?id=332289

...And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature....

Are we approaching yet another tipping point, ice age alarmism?

for what it's worth, this year is the first time in my life that i've seen daffodils flower in january - and my record goes back further than 1972

The recent extreme melting in the Arctic is far in excess of the long term trend predicted by models, and possibly the cold Canadian winter is in excess the other way. Climate scientists have come up with some theories about what may have caused the swings, including shifted wind patterns as one possibility, but generally they don't know what caused the swings. Still, the long term trend is clear enough and climate scientists don't claim to be weather forecasters.

A quick perusal of Realclimate came up with this, which pretty well sums it up:

The more important message from models is that all but a few outliers predict enourmous (sic) sea ice retreat this century. At least a few respectable models predict a nearly ice-free Arctic by midcentury, with a retreat that may be punctuated by rapid events.

Apparently we have witnessed one of those rapid event punctuations.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-21st-century/

Talking about models, it seems that the first prediction model about earth issues was designed by Mark Twain, predicting the lenght of the Mississippi:

In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

A classical gem.

Incidentely, it went without much notice that the Southern Hemisphere sea ice hit "all time" high records last year. Would the same few respectable models predict complete freezing over by midcentury?

It should also illustrate how worthless the most sophisticated prediction models are, when the interpretation of the data is wrong and the mechanisms are not understood. A token of that is the refutation of the isotope paleo thermometer, which was the very basis of the climate hype as can be observed here how the panic unfolded.

On the subject of global warming, it is a ridiculous name to name this subject. I'd slap the idiot that branded global warming to our current circumstance. I know that it was based on the green house gaz concept and therefore named global warming, but the true term should be Climatic change!

On the note of climatic change, the rise in temperature isn't a global phenomenon, but more regionally affecting many places in the world. Also, some places will be cooling. The thing is that with the increase in CO2 we've thrown into the atmosphere, we've thrown off balance the climatic cycle of the earth.

There are many many factors involved in our present crisis on climatic change.

First off, the rise in CO2 affects the oceans as this is the major absorbent of this gas. The ocean is reacting but since water is a thermal inertial molecule (not sure about this term) but I'm trying to state that water requires a lot of energy to change in temperature. So, in this state it is like a ticking time bomb. I can elaborate on this fact if asked, currently late and my brain isn't at its fullest.

Still on the subject of our oceans, the melting of Ice (not sea ice) but the Greenland and the Antarctic ice could be a danger. Some of you might have seen the movie The day after tomorrow, the information they give on the ocean conveyor and the effects of fresh water thrown into the northern Atlantic are true. I've done a thesis paper on this subject.

The fact that we cannot calculate how much fresh water has been thrown into the northern Atlantic and that we do not know the tipping point of this system is a dangerous fact. If the ocean conveyor does stop, the earth won't freeze as fast as the movies shows, but it will freeze. Also, if it does stop, climatic models with today's atmospheric conditions show it won't start back for over 1000 years. As for models of the past atmospheric conditions showed that it took several decades or more to restart.

Secondly, we are due for another Ice age. So far the cycles have been 100 000 years of ice followed by a period of warming that lasts about 10 000 years. Our last ice age ended approximately 9 000 years (give or take 1000 years) ago. By the way, geological dating isn't an exact science!

There are so many factors on global warming and the media is milking all it can! I do believe we must reduce our impact on the atmosphere as much as possible and as fast as possible. I for one, do not own a car by choice.

The true threat, which isn't as publicly shown is our waste, which is what I find we should focus on, not global warming. Our society should be working like an ecosystem, every individuals waste is another's food source. A cycle where nothing is Toxic. We've survived for several million years as a species (10 000years since human "civilization began) without ever using toxic substances, why do we require them now?

No news here. We had about an average winter, but it's been so warm in recent decades that most have forgotten what an average year is supposed to be like.

For example, January was slightly warming than the long term average:

"Global Highlights

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for January was the 31st warmest on record, 0.32°F/0.18°C above the 20th century mean. "

For the winter it was rather warm still
December - February
"Global Highlights

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the 16th warmest on record for the December 2007-February 2008 period (0.58°F/0.32°C above the 20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C). "

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...s.html#monthly

We've been at the very bottom of a 11/22 year solar cycle with min solar radiation--not only isn't a relatively cool year compared to recent times a surprising, it was predicted.

10 inches of sea ice compared to the lowest ice on record isn't too impressive compared to the lowest year or the several meters lost in the past two decades.

Also note article referenced the record cold temps..even in warmer regimes there will be record colds--just less often. Visa versa is true. In December, we had more than 70 record highs in the US alone. Individual temperature records don't count for much.

Ice records also go back in some detail nearly 150 years and there's a building archeology case that the ice hasn't been this low in at least 700 years.

The March data are in for the satellite temperatures:

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_...cean_v03_0.txt

This would lead to the following business as usual for the last ten years:



However we were promised to be about one degree warmer some decade ago too, the green scenario-A is business as usual too.



However in reality we are somewhere in the middle of the legend box.

Forecasted warming is much less than 1C/decade, closer to 0.3-0.5C/decade most of the models--including the one presented above.

Also, it's useful to see the satillete derived lower tropospheric temperature for more than one solar cycle. This shows actual measurement (weather balloons) and derived temperature together:

Happens to be the same as this, but yours stops short of where it gets very interesting.



Updated to March 2008

An opinion:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...icle578227.ece

It shows 3 more years of data 2005-2007, clearly above (about +0.2C) the averages of the total timeline as well showing the depressed temperature associated with the expected solar radiance min discussed early in the thread.

No surprise at all despite the impressive authoritative objective and climate scientist peer reviewed Sun article

yes and? how catastrophical is it to hover around 0.1 degrees above the 1960-1990 average and going down? Try the 1930-1950 average for a change.

And since when is the sun a factor all of a sudden or La Niña?????? Didn't IPCC ensure us that the main overwhelming climate forcing is CO2?

Anyway another look here: http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

Originally Posted by andre

yes and? how catastrophical is it to hover around 0.1 degrees above the 1960-1990 average and going down? Try the 1930-1950 average for a change.

Not even close. If you look at surface land and sea data, this year even at solar min in the 11/22 solar cycle was well above the 1960-90 or 1930-1950 averages. I've posted the 1880 - 2007 trend chart and 2007 compared to the averages below.
--
As for the article I'll read it later, but I'll tell you, any article still in denial of the hockey stick temperature profile, like this one, is either obsolete, completely ignoring the temperature reconstructions of an immense range of data (tree rings, coral growth, plankton deposits on sea floors, deep bore temps, etc), or not motivated by objective science. That makes the entire article highly suspect. For more about the hockey stick we had a thread a couple weeks ago about it where even early critics now concede its truth based on the overwelming evidence.


If you have a specific part of the article you’d like to discuss, I’d be happy to share my thoughts and a lifetime of interest and education on atmospheric science—a big part of why I joined these forums.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by andre

yes and? how catastrophical is it to hover around 0.1 degrees above the 1960-1990 average and going down? Try the 1930-1950 average for a change.

Not even close. If you look at surface land and sea data, this year even at solar min in the 11/22 solar cycle was well above the 1960-90 or 1930-1950 averages. I've posted the 1880 - 2007 trend chart and 2007 compared to the averages below.

Expect that source to be officially audited for their methods in the near future.

The current reality, hovering around 0.1:

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_...cean_v03_0.txt

.................UAH................RSS
2007-4....0.244..........0.170
2007-5....0.199..........0.173
2007-6 .... 0.203 .........0.153
2007-7.... 0.255..........0.268
2007-8.... 0.286..........0.261
2007-9... 0.201..........0.195
2007-10... 0.231..........0.172
2007-11... 0.209.........0.087
2007-12... 0.114.........-0.023
2008-1... -0.046........-0.118
2008-2... 0.020 .......-0.021
2008-3... 0.094 .......-0.096

For more about the hockey stick we had a thread a couple weeks ago about it where even early critics now concede its truth based on the overwelming evidence.

This is by far the most misleading statement ever, displaying an extreme form of groupthink.

check
http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=15

Originally Posted by andre

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by andre

yes and? how catastrophical is it to hover around 0.1 degrees above the 1960-1990 average and going down? Try the 1930-1950 average for a change.

Not even close. If you look at surface land and sea data, this year even at solar min in the 11/22 solar cycle was well above the 1960-90 or 1930-1950 averages. I've posted the 1880 - 2007 trend chart and 2007 compared to the averages below.

Expect that source to be officially audited for their methods in the near future.

The current reality, hovering around 0.1:

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_...cean_v03_0.txt

.................UAH................RSS
2007-4....0.244..........0.170
2007-5....0.199..........0.173
2007-6 .... 0.203 .........0.153
2007-7.... 0.255..........0.268
2007-8.... 0.286..........0.261
2007-9... 0.201..........0.195
2007-10... 0.231..........0.172
2007-11... 0.209.........0.087
2007-12... 0.114.........-0.023
2008-1... -0.046........-0.118
2008-2... 0.020 .......-0.021
2008-3... 0.094 .......-0.096

Not sure what you're arguing.

I discussed current temp compared to two 1960-1990 average and 1930-1950. All one can do is use surface temperature because we didn't have satellites. Your satellite information, which starts about 1980, adds nothing to contest that.
--
The data you post appears to be the same as the graphic you posted. Even by your own table (or graph) it's been much lower over the past 30 years (even -0.48 at one point). Based on those past minimums, this one should be about -0.2 to -0.3--instead its higher than the average for the period. The 30 year lower tropospheric satellite data you've shown as well as the 130 year surface temperature data I presented all show net increases over time with smaller perturbations.

check
http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=15

Seen them before. It doesn't counter my claim that early critics have reversed their position on this tiresome matter (put up examples in the other thread from lead statisticians). It does show one critic's (a non atmospheric scientist) continued entrenchment and mostly quibbling about bristle cone pines. It was relevant ten years ago, before we had a mountain of other reconstructed temperatures all substantiating the same hockey stick temperature increases first analyzed from the bristle cones. McIntyre is an interesting character, and not always in a bad way. If nothing else, he's encouraged the atmospheric scientific community to document and double check their work:-)

okay lets do some absolute plots:



Notice that the satellite plot of the MSU 2LT of UAH is pulled up tp the GISS value at the starting point in 1979 and also that the last plot of the UAH is merely the first three months of 2008, not a complete plot.

Other than that, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Furthermore it would be very interesting to learn who of the sceptics got so terrified with the multiple recycling of the MBHs fraudulent PC1 that he converted to the warming cult.

Wishing you a nice night rest.

Going to be a lot worse,

Notice that the satellite plot of the MSU 2LT of UAH is pulled up tp the GISS value at the starting point in 1979 and also that the last plot of the UAH is merely the first three months of 2008, not a complete plot.

Indeed, which means that the last three months point shouldn't be plotted at all because it represent an average over smaller time and thus higher variability than the annual averages that make up the rest of the plot. Statistically, odds are the annual average for 2008 won't turn out nearly as variable and difference between the data sets much smaller.

Discounting the last point gives a better picture that does show some divergence in the past year. Not sure all the reasons for this--we know the satellite temperatures are are proxy information not direct measurements but have the advantage of excellent area coverage, while the GISS data is best in the North Hemispheric land data, but has lots of holes at the poles and other remote areas not traversed by ship data. The difference is probably not very significant unless the trend continues for a few more years. (reminds myself to look at this later).

Getting back the trend data, I'll save us both the number crunching and use what's already been provided by a Yale study: "SS and HadCRU both show a warming trend of 0.16 degrees C per decade from 1979 to February 2008. RSS shows a warming trend of 0.18 per decade over the same period, while UAH shows a warming trend of 0.14." http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/dept/0408_GTRs.htm

Note the GISS trend falls right between the two satellite temperature trends--essentially they agree with each other.

Just out of interest, since the 1988 model data was included in your graph, scenario B was the closest over the past 30 years. Scenario B assumes nearly linear forcing with green house gas.

Other than that, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Ok I used about 200.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Indeed, which means that the last three months point shouldn't be plotted at all because it represent an average over smaller time and thus higher variability than the annual averages that make up the rest of the plot. Statistically, odds are the annual average for 2008 won't turn out nearly as variable and difference between the data sets much smaller.

Therefore, have a look at all sources on a three months, quarterly increment

"SS and HadCRU both show a warming trend of 0.16 degrees C per decade from 1979 to February 2008. RSS shows a warming trend of 0.18 per decade over the same period, while UAH shows a warming trend of 0.14."

RSS: 0.112
UAH: 0.137
HadCRU: 0.165

Note the GISS trend falls right between the two satellite temperature trends--essentially they agree with each other.

Shall we talk long noses? GISS (GHCN) is at 0.189

Just out of interest, since the 1988 model data was included in your graph, scenario B was the closest over the past 30 years. Scenario B assumes nearly linear forcing with green house gas.

Noses, another deltoid deception. better read threads and links:

Notice about scenarios Hansen et al '88 Section 4,

A: "the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially"

...Yet this upper-limit projection predicted annual emissions growth of only 2.3 percent between 2000 and 2010, far less than the 3.1 percent annual increase observed so far this century.

Other than that, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Ok I used about 200.

And they are worthless, misinformation

RSS: 0.112
UAH: 0.137
HadCRU: 0.165

It appears you plotted and quoted the wrong RSS data, specifically the Channel TMT which is proxy for mid tropospheric temperature.

You should have used Channel TLT, which is lower tropospheric temperature:

Channel TLT 1979 - 2008-03, 0.177 K/decade
Channel TMT 1979 2008-03, 0.112 K/decade

http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_de...decadal_trends

Also GISS is not the same as GHCN.

In summary, UAH: 0.137, HadCRU: 0.165, GHCN: 0.189, GISS: 0.169, RSS(TLT): 0.177. All going up.

--
Why you quoted scenario A, I don't know. Hanson said in 1988 that scenario B, which is linear forcing was most likely, and it's the closest to observation.
--

Shall we talk long noses?

I prefer to have an intellectual discussion here--don't you?

Indeed I used the wrong set, sorry. This is the correct one:



but the interesting part is the last ten years, look what rss is doing:



Hansen based scenario A on an annual growth of the CO2 emission on 1.5% per year while the actual annual emission growth appears to be 3.1%. What's so difficult with that?

If you trim the graph further, such that it only includes 2007-2008, you can actually observe a downwards trend.

a question : from what degree of granularity are you actually discussing weather rather than climate ?

If you all REALLY want to know what the future is going to be like, all you have to do is just travel to SpaceWeather.com, and check out the sunspot activity, on a daily basis. Yesterday, there was a tiny spot, that did not even get numbered. Today?

The sun is blank--no sunspots. Credit: SOHO/MDI Notice the date in the address window.

Gentlemen, and ladies :wink: , we are still currently at the trailing end of Sunspot Cycle 23, which is long overdue to have been over,.........but it isn't. And the reason why it isn't is because there is no 'ginned-up' activity on the sun. The sun is Dead, with regard to activity. And it is FACT that a tranquil sun, means that the plant Earth, will become a cooler Earth.

This period of tranquility has been going on since 2005, and it usually takes around 4-7 years for the change, ever so slightly, to be felt here on our planet. Forget the current hot spell, but look at the rest of the last few months, and it is aparent that we are not heating up, but rather the opposite.

If solar scientists are correct, and Sunspot Cycle 23 continues on for another year, the cooling period will accelerate. Yet, this is exactly what has been forecast. This graph shows a history of the last two complete 178.8 year solar cycles, and also projects outward the next one, and as you can see, Sunspot Cycle 24 is going to be a Real Dud, activity wise. In fact, it will be almost an absense of a sunspot activity.

The sun is blank--no sunspots. Credit: SOHO/MDI

In other words, forget about AGW, it's the Sun that is the REAL diciding factor, and although it may not be all that much, it is enough to make a real difference in global temperatures. Personally, I believe we are headed for another little ice age by 2030, like another Dalton Minimum. Then where will Algore be?

As for the term "Climate Change", so what? Climate is ALWAYS changing, and if you think things are bad with a warm planet(which I contend is much better), just wait until a cooler climate wrecks havoc on the agriculture belts of the planet. Global cooling is the ABSOLUTE WORST thing that could happen to we humans. Trust me on this one. :wink:

What we should REALLY be worried about are Impactors from space. Why aren't you AGW True Believers all vexed about the threat of Asteroids and especially Comets? If you take the time and just study the latest Clovis Comet theory, you will see that a comet does not have to actually strike the earth to cause mass extinctions, and totall disruption. And we are constantly struck, with a major strike occuring about every thousand years. THERE is where you guys should be worried.

And speaking of Clovis Comet, that's why I'm Really here..............................

The sun spot cycles are defined by first appearance of a high-latitude reverse-polarity sunspot. The first one of these appeared in January 2008.

It's not unusual at all to have overlapping polarity sunspots during the relatively quiet periods between the cycles--the old ones such as the one you pointed out near the equator and new-cycle ones near the poles.

I do like your graph though--it points out the regularity of the solar cycle, the entire range solar emission of which is a fraction of the forcing from changes in green house gasses caused by agriculture and industry. Note even in this quiet year we're far from record low global temps--closer to average.

No serious scientist denies the importance of solar fluctuation to climate and short term changes which is why it's been included in every model for several decades. The problem is the degree of forcing comes up short whether you run climate models or astronomical models of the sun.


I've read your Clovis Comet post and will respond there in the next couple days.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

The sun spot cycles are defined by first appearance of a high-latitude reverse-polarity sunspot. The first one of these appeared in January 2008.

And that is why it is best to think of the sunspot cycles in their paired entities. For example, we are still going through Sunspot Cycle 23, as evidenced by another small spot, which can be seen right here. That is today's picture, as you can see by the address window date. Also, here is a close-up of the spot.

It's not unusual at all to have overlapping polarity sunspots during the relatively quiet periods between the cycles--the old ones such as the one you pointed out near the equator and new-cycle ones near the poles.

I just started keeping up with things a couple of months ago, and missed the Sunspot Cycle 24 spots in the northern hemisphere. But I can well understand their appearance. However, they are still quite few and far between, which leads me to conclude that the graph may be correct, and we will not witness all that much this time around.

I do like your graph though--it points out the regularity of the solar cycle, the entire range solar emission of which is a fraction of the forcing from changes in green house gasses caused by agriculture and industry. Note even in this quiet year we're far from record low global temps--closer to average.

No serious scientist denies the importance of solar fluctuation to climate and short term changes which is why it's been included in every model for several decades. The problem is the degree of forcing comes up short whether you run climate models or astronomical models of the sun.

What is interesting is that AGW beievers tend to Poo-Poo the influence of solar storms and the possibility of it's ability to generate enough gamma rays to form a barrier against cosmic rays. But the fact is that only a small amount of change is really necessary to create this minor change. And it is clear that the principle cause is the gravitational pull of Saturn, as it influences the solar system's center of gravity. Aparently it's all about gravity.

But because the change is ever so slight, it takes time for the effects to be felt, and they are somewhere between 4-7 years. I have gone back and checked sunspot activity since 2001, and by the later half of 2005, the frequency of sunspot activity has been really slowing down. This would indicate that next year will see a definate movement toward a cooler planet. Clearly it is showing up in the southern hemisphere, more so than the northern half, because the north is slightly tilted toward the sun more.

I have no doubt that we are headed into another cooling period, but I still am in the process of reading more about this scientific phenonium. I have just been pointed to this site. There is so much to digest that it will take me some time. That will keep me out of the bars and off the streets for a couple of days. :wink:

I've read your Clovis Comet post and will respond there in the next couple days.

Did you also read about the presence of Carolina Bays as well? Can't remember if I mentioned them, but they clearly indicate an atmospheric burst of a fairly large Impactor at some time in the past. In fact, it looks to be more than one.

I think it is becoming more evident with each passing day, that we are being bombarded much more than we thought, by 'visitors' from the heavens, and they are not benevolent ones either.

I'm beginning to believe that any major event we witness or discover here, almost always has some celestial influence. And if it is a regular pattern, you can bet the farm that it is, and not worry about losing the bet.

Originally Posted by John L

And that is why it is best to think of the sunspot cycles in their paired entities. For example, we are still going through Sunspot Cycle 23, as evidenced by another small spot, ...

It would be more accurate to say were still having regments of sunspot cycle 23. Cycle 24, as defined by the solar astronomical community has already started. This one, so far, is not atypical. It tends to take a couple years for a cycle to become firmly established and active.

What is interesting is that AGW beievers tend to Poo-Poo the influence of solar storms and the possibility of it's ability to generate enough gamma rays to form a barrier against cosmic rays.

Yes and no. The small fluctuation in radiance associated with the sunspot cycle has been known and measured for at least 3 decades--as I said before its amplitude just comes short of that of green house gas changes.
The connection between cosmic rays and clouds is in doubt because it lacks both a sound physical explanation. The main problem is it assumes lack of cloud condensation nuclei--for which there simply little evidence. The other problem is several deliberate attempts to confirm the hypothesis failed to show any relationship.

And it is clear that the principle cause is the gravitational pull of Saturn, as it influences the solar system's center of gravity. Aparently it's all about gravity.

Seriously, you're closer to astrology here than science.

But because the change is ever so slight, it takes time for the effects to be felt, and they are somewhere between 4-7 years. I have gone back and checked sunspot activity since 2001, and by the later half of 2005, the frequency of sunspot activity has been really slowing down.

We'll see. NASA, who I'd think knows a bit about the sun predicts a pretty active cycle.

For a contrast:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre..._sunspots2.pdf

Sunspots may vanish by 2015.
William Livingston, Matthew Penn

We have observed spectroscopic changes in temperature sensitive molecular lines, in the magnetic splitting of an Fe I line, and in the continuum brightness of over 1000 sunspot umbrae from 1990-2005. All three measurements show consistent trends in which the darkest parts of the sunspot umbra have become warmer (45K per year) and their magnetic field strengths have decreased (77 Gauss per year), independently of the normal 11-year sunspot cycle. A linear extrapolation of these trends suggests that few sunspots will be visible after 2015.

...cont'd

Originally Posted by andre

For a contrast:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre..._sunspots2.pdf

Sunspots may vanish by 2015.
William Livingston, Matthew Penn

We have observed spectroscopic changes in temperature sensitive molecular lines, in the magnetic splitting of an Fe I line, and in the continuum brightness of over 1000 sunspot umbrae from 1990-2005. All three measurements show consistent trends in which the darkest parts of the sunspot umbra have become warmer (45K per year) and their magnetic field strengths have decreased (77 Gauss per year), independently of the normal 11-year sunspot cycle. A linear extrapolation of these trends suggests that few sunspots will be visible after 2015.

...cont'd

This appears to be an unpublished manuscript from 2005.

Originally Posted by andre

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=332289

...And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature....

Are we approaching yet another tipping point, ice age alarmism?

No, it's just more uniformed blather that is not consistent with the data.

As of June 7, preliminary data show that the vast expanse of ice at the top of the world is some 55,800 square miles smaller than it was on the same date last year, according to University of Colorado researcher Sheldon Drobot. In May, sea-ice extent was slightly large than in May 2007. But the melt rate during the month – some 3,000 square miles a day – was faster, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo.