Decline in solar output unlikely to offset global warming

[CavLancer]

Don't know if you've come around Ziggy but if you have, great! Your article is a bit late to the party but I figured they would get it sooner or later. I was reading NASA data 2 years ago that pointed to decreased solar output and put 2 + 2 together to get cooling. Correspondingly if you look at global warming it ties into increased solar output to some degree. There's other things to consider but there you go. If one mulls those 2 things then where is CO2? Well its a greenhouse gas that is a real underachiever in spite of all the hoopla. It doesn't seem to be able to hold in the heat as expected...

Its a long road but you were impressed enough by the article to consider it worthy of its own thread, and I agree. The other thread its stated in the title 'The argument FOR..." or some such. Your article is a portion of what constitutes the argument against. Just remember...the debate it over!

Good luck though if you eventually switch sides, its not much fun believing something that is a magnet for so much negativity. Who cares though? Good to speak ones mind.

 

[Rashiminos]

Also many other climatologists, based on the fact that the current interglacial is running longer than past ones. The Earth is overdue for an Ice Age.

That 11,000 figure is mostly a statistical description.

 

[BasketCase]

Elaborate please?

Side notes: I drew my conclusion about an overdue Ice Age from two sources, William Ruddiman and simply looking at the graphs. Previous warm periods are frequently such narrow peaks on the graphs that they present as one pixel wide. The different graphs vary widely, and it's also possible that our measuring is more accurate for more recent periods. All things considered, an Ice Age almost definitely should have started a few thousand years ago.

 

[Winner]

I thought the sun's output is supposed to increase as it ages?

Yes, but that increase occurs within astronomical time periods (read, hundreds of millions of years). In the meantime, Sun undergoes various short/short-medium term cycles of activity that are still not very well understood. So, even though eventually Sun will get hotter and brighter, it is entirely possible for its output to decline slightly over astronomically short periods of times (decades, centuries, millennia).

(in the Dragon's Egg novel, it's explained by small primordial black holes inside the Sun which slightly unbalance its fusion core, or something like that. Hopefully that's not true )

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Don't know if you've come around Ziggy but if you have, great! Your article is a bit late to the party but I figured they would get it sooner or later. I was reading NASA data 2 years ago that pointed to decreased solar output and put 2 + 2 together to get cooling. Correspondingly if you look at global warming it ties into increased solar output to some degree. There's other things to consider but there you go. If one mulls those 2 things then where is CO2? Well its a greenhouse gas that is a real underachiever in spite of all the hoopla. It doesn't seem to be able to hold in the heat as expected...

Its a long road but you were impressed enough by the article to consider it worthy of its own thread, and I agree. The other thread its stated in the title 'The argument FOR..." or some such. Your article is a portion of what constitutes the argument against. Just remember...the debate it over!

Good luck though if you eventually switch sides, its not much fun believing something that is a magnet for so much negativity. Who cares though? Good to speak ones mind.

You didn't read a word of the article did ya?

 

[LegionSteve]

The BBC has an article about a government study into the effects of global warming on Britain. Link

The result seems to be that they don't know, but have guessed at some things that might happen:

Headlines for possible negative outcomes, assuming nothing is done in preparation, include:

Hotter summers leading to between 580-5900 deaths above the average per year by the 2050s.
Water shortages in the north, south and east of England, especially the Thames Valley area by the 2080s.
Increased damage from flooding could cost between £2.1bn-£12bn by the 2080s.

The report's positive findings include:

The melting of Arctic sea ice opening shorter shipping routes to Asia.
Milder winters leading to 3,900-24,000 fewer premature deaths by the 2050s, significantly more than those forecast to die as a result of hot weather.
Wheat yields to increase by 40-140% and sugar beet yields by 20-70% because of longer growing seasons by the 2050s.

 

[CavLancer]

You didn't read a word of the article did ya?

Ya got me, I'll go read it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

See you in a disappointed minute

 

[CavLancer]

You're right Ziggy, it wasn't what I expected at all. Yes I should have read it first, my apology. So...its more evidence of global warming, why not put it in the evidence of global warming thread? Nah never mind, machts nichts.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The old one went over 1000 posts. The new one was made after this one.

 

[CavLancer]

Ah, so there's a bit of drama going on? What fun, well, I wonder which thread I should discuss such stuff in?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Flip a coin.

Maybe better to use the sequel thread. One of these monstrosities is more than enough.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The BBC has an article about a government study into the effects of global warming on Britain. Link

The result seems to be that they don't know, but have guessed at some things that might happen:

No vanishing in the sea?

 

[LegionSteve]

Apparently not disappearing into the sea, at least in this century. Maybe next century?

Also, I thought this was the new GW thread to replace the one that got closed, but it seems there are two now

 

[BasketCase]

No problem, I can handle two global warming threads at once.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Apparently not disappearing into the sea, at least in this century. Maybe next century?

Don't bother. Your correction of my sloppy English reminded me of the use of the Isles - maintaining English which got style and grace and where not every second word is "like".

 

[peter grimes]

Dude, every Ice Age has been a mass extinction event. (one exception being the "Little Ice Age" which wasn't really an Ice Age but which did cause a whole lot of grief)

No, you're certainly wrong about this. You have it precisely backwards: The only recent glacitation that is correlated with an extinction event is the Late Pleistocene, and even here the cause is debatable.

There was an extinction event that corresponded with the glaciation at the end of the Ordovician, but that's the only other one that I can find evidence for.

Also, in reading up on this, I came across something that indicates we may be facing an exceptionally long interglacial:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6992/full/nature02599.html

The interglacial stage following Termination V was exceptionally long—28,000 years compared to, for example, the 12,000 years recorded so far in the present interglacial period. Given the similarities between this earlier warm period and today, our results may imply that without human intervention, a climate similar to the present one would extend well into the future.

Not sure if you were aware of this or not. Granted, it's only one paper. But I found it relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[tokala]

Not sure if you were aware of this or not. Granted, it's only one paper. But I found it relevant to the discussion at hand.

Someone really should consolidate those two threads