[Isotherm]

I believe this will be my first post in the climate change forum, so hello to everyone. Here's my discussion regarding current climate trends / possible future evolution. Posted this on another site as well. If any or most of this has been discussed here, I apologize, but here are my views.

Let me begin by saying this - I try to remain unbiased in the matter, basing my assertions off science, not politics - which this situation seems to have become nationwide. Bottom line is if one does the research - one will find that there is much, much more to this debate than the media portrays. And by that I mean the following: at the very least, there's sound meteorological evidence to doubt the IPCC's "forecast" for doom and gloom down the road.

Just a brief background on climate:

1) Little Ice age occurred in the mid 1600s-1700s - most probable answer is due to very low solar activity. If one looks back at the sunspot cyles, you'lll note that flares/radiation was essentially nil throughout that period.

2) Earth emerged from the LIA in the 1800s. Global temperatures began rising well before the onset of the industrial evolution in the early 1900s.

3) C02 concentrations and temperatures have risen/fallen significantly in the past - long before humans existed. In fact there's a 400 year lag; temperatures increase first, then C02 about 400 yrs later -- completely opposite of what mainstream anthropogenic warmingista's assert.

4) In the 1940s-70s, global temps cooled slightly, even with an increasing CO2 level. Best explanation for this is natural oceanic cycles -- the PDO (pacific decadel oscillation) was in a cold phase in this time. Will illustrate later with map.

5) The 1980s-90s featured drastic warming - which media suggests is due mostly or wholly to CO2. However, (now here's the new part), since 1998, temps have leveled off, and fallen since 2000 -- the most significant temp drop-off in over a decade happened just this past year -- 2007 to 2008.

How could this be if CO2 is responsible for global warming?

Notice on the graph below -- the light blue line indicative of CO2 concentrations continuing upward. But the pink line is global temps -- steadily downward the past few years. Apparent disconnect between the two.

http://i33.tinypic.com/2ps0n6h.jpg


In the past - CO2 levels would rise after temps - why? - because once the interglacial period begins, all that ice slowly melts, allowing CO2 from the carbon sinks in oceans and over land to diffuse back into the atmospere.

You may ask - now that we're adding CO2 with our industrial activity, how would that effect temps? Well - note the graph below, C02 is far from the main atmospheric gas. In fact it accounts for less than 0.1%:


http://i37.tinypic.com/hsn6dc.gif


This next graph depicts CO2 and it's relation with other dominant gases in our atmosphere. Note that water vapor accounts for more than 95% in terms of contribution to the greenhouse effect, while CO2 is less than 1%, and the anthropogenic part of that is even lower, around 0.117%! It's the water vapor that does the warming, not the CO2 IMO.


http://i34.tinypic.com/t8kkxs.jpg


You be the judge here -- examine the following two graphs.

First one is temperatures VS. CO2 over the past decade. Remember CO2 is the green line going upward.



http://i37.tinypic.com/mab3eo.jpg


Now here's temperatures VS. solar activity since 1550:


http://i34.tinypic.com/f28qjt.jpg


Which one has a stronger correlation to temp (CO2 or solar)?

It's funny as I've read some articles claiming that "the sun accounts for less than 30% of climate change, and is a small factor in the overall picture."

Really? So you're telling me if we turn off the sun tonight - none of us will know, becuase we're in this hot greenhouse due to the anthropogenic/industrial activity.


Back to the cool period from the 1940s-70s. Below is a graph of the Pacific decadal oscillation. Note it's cold phase in exactly that period. Makes sense to me, as it does many others.


http://i33.tinypic.com/30m90td.jpg


One last comments regarding current climate. I've already shown the graph of temps decreasing rapidly over the couple past year.

We also have something interesting going on w/ the Sun. The present sunspot cycle has been virtually inactive over the past year-15 months -- the weakest it's been for this duration for several decades. We're in cycle 23 right now - note the graph below. Our current sunspot cycle -- depicted by the purple line -- is lower than the past 4 cycles:

http://i36.tinypic.com/14d235c.jpg


As mentioned earlier in the post -- low sunspots cycles have correlated to colder periods in Earth's history. I'm not saying we're headed for an ice age, but I do believe global temps will continue to cool due to the following factors:

1) PDO cold cycle re-emerging (last cold cycle was 40s-70s).
2) Possible weakening solar constant as shown above -- big key -- if the next sunspot cycle is even lower than the current one, it's essentially a lock that global temps will be on the downward slope.
3) Third factor - not as important as the others, but we are beginning to enter the negative cyclic phase of the NAO-AO (as seen from the late 40s-late 70s).

What I'm saying is this -- there is more than reasonable doubt concerning the human-induced global warming theory, which the media continues to push. Please don't get me wrong w/ this post - I'm all for renewable energy sources and green ideas; however, I believe the politics are unfortunately taking the forefront in this debate, which is a shame.

Anyway -- at the very least, global temps look to be leveling off/slowly decreasing from the past couple decades. We've already seen the Earth "turn the corner" with the cooling since 2000-2002, and particularly over the past year. The doomsday warming is based upon climate forecast models which 1) Only know as much as we put into them, 2) Cannot grasp the intricate interactions and processes that transpire in our atmosphere. 3) Co2 is less than 0.1% of the atmosphere, far too miniscule to have a significant impact on global climate. Main drivers here IMO are solar and natural-terrestrial cycles. Water vapor is the primary heat-holding gas - well accepted in the meteorological community.

*Just as an FYI - but even if Al Gore was correct for some strange reason - our climate system has numerous ways to counteract any human induced warming.

1) Increase in temps leads to more water vapor, thus more clouds, thus a negative feedback cycle begins -- cooling the earth due to cloudcover/precipitation.

2) Gulf stream - if the entire northern ice cap melts as predicted by some, the thermohaline circulation of the Atlantic would shut-down, causing the northern hemisphere to cool drastically, thereby plunging us into another ice age.

[paragon]

interesting....my opinion is that is very comprehensive and kudo's on the time spent!....!

I was always interested in the fact that temps increased much more rapidly then co2. A fact that in
my opinion was never sufficiently handled by the agw "CLIMATOLOGIST".

[Isotherm]

paragon, on Aug 4 2008, 05:54 PM, said:

interesting....my opinion is that is very comprehensive and kudo's on the time spent!....!

I was always interested in the fact that temps increased much more rapidly then co2. A fact that in
my opinion was never sufficiently handled by the agw "CLIMATOLOGIST".

Thanks paragon!

[MN transplant]

Good to see someone looking at the topic with data. Let me show where I have differences in opinion with yours.

Isotherm, on Aug 4 2008, 05:29 PM, said:

I believe this will be my first post in the climate change forum, so hello to everyone. Here's my discussion regarding current climate trends / possible future evolution. Posted this on another site as well. If any or most of this has been discussed here, I apologize, but here are my views.

Let me begin by saying this - I try to remain unbiased in the matter, basing my assertions off science, not politics - which this situation seems to have become nationwide. Bottom line is if one does the research - one will find that there is much, much more to this debate than the media portrays. And by that I mean the following: at the very least, there's sound meteorological evidence to doubt the IPCC's "forecast" for doom and gloom down the road.

Just a brief background on climate:

1) Little Ice age occurred in the mid 1600s-1700s - most probable answer is due to very low solar activity. If one looks back at the sunspot cyles, you'lll note that flares/radiation was essentially nil throughout that period.

2) Earth emerged from the LIA in the 1800s. Global temperatures began rising well before the onset of the industrial evolution in the early 1900s.

Looks good so far.

Quote

3) C02 concentrations and temperatures have risen/fallen significantly in the past - long before humans existed. In fact there's a 400 year lag; temperatures increase first, then C02 about 400 yrs later -- completely opposite of what mainstream anthropogenic warmingista's assert.

Actually, this has been a well-known issue for many years now. I have found the lag to be 800 years in most literature, but nonetheless it is several centuries. Through recent geologic times, temperature increases have preceded the rise in CO2. This is generally accepted to be due to solar variations due to orbital changes. What the climate community will tell you is that the solar changes can not have accounted for all of the temperature increase, however. What is required is a feedback from water vapor and CO2.

Quote

4) In the 1940s-70s, global temps cooled slightly, even with an increasing CO2 level. Best explanation for this is natural oceanic cycles -- the PDO (pacific decadel oscillation) was in a cold phase in this time. Will illustrate later with map.

Another possibility for the mid-20th century plateau is the presence of sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere, the so-called global dimming theory.

Quote

5) The 1980s-90s featured drastic warming - which media suggests is due mostly or wholly to CO2. However, (now here's the new part), since 1998, temps have leveled off, and fallen since 2000 -- the most significant temp drop-off in over a decade happened just this past year -- 2007 to 2008.

How could this be if CO2 is responsible for global warming?

What is not emphasized enough is that the CO2 forcing is on top of an already existing cycle. It isn't a one or the other type issue.

Quote

Notice on the graph below -- the light blue line indicative of CO2 concentrations continuing upward. But the pink line is global temps -- steadily downward the past few years. Apparent disconnect between the two.

In the past - CO2 levels would rise after temps - why? - because once the interglacial period begins, all that ice slowly melts, allowing CO2 from the carbon sinks in oceans and over land to diffuse back into the atmospere.

You may ask - now that we're adding CO2 with our industrial activity, how would that effect temps? Well - note the graph below, C02 is far from the main atmospheric gas. In fact it accounts for less than 0.1%:

But Nitrogen and Oxygen are irrelevant to the greenhouse scenario. Your better comparison would be with water vapor, which is a stronger greenhouse gas. But water vapor is a true feedback.

Quote

You be the judge here -- examine the following two graphs.

First one is temperatures VS. CO2 over the past decade. Remember CO2 is the green line going upward.

Now here's temperatures VS. solar activity since 1550:
http://i34.tinypic.com/f28qjt.jpg
Which one has a stronger correlation to temp (CO2 or solar)?

I left this one it because it is an inaccurate graph in a couple of ways. First the temperature curve is wrong, as shown by the 1950 temperature being equivalent to the end of the 90s temperature. Secondly, it cuts off the "solar activity" right before the correlation breaks down. What we have seen is that by some measures solar increased to the 1950s, in others to the 1970s, but over and over it has been shown that solar activity ceased to directly correlate with temperature in the second half of the 20th century.

Quote

It's funny as I've read some articles claiming that "the sun accounts for less than 30% of climate change, and is a small factor in the overall picture."

Really? So you're telling me if we turn off the sun tonight - none of us will know, becuase we're in this hot greenhouse due to the anthropogenic/industrial activity.

Statements like that simply blow my mind.

Actually, statements like that are coming from skeptics and solar-climate specialists. The analogy of turning off the sun makes no sense. It is more accurate to say that the sun has had a quasi-constant output for 3-5 decades.

Quote

Back to the cool period from the 1940s-70s. Below is a graph of the Pacific decadal oscillation. Note it's cold phase in exactly that period. Makes sense to me, as it does many others.

The question is, how do you explain the periods preceding and following it. If the PDO is in control, then the role of solar in the first half of the century is thrown out the window. If solar is in control, then the PDO wouldn't have caused the late-century warming.

[MN transplant]

Quote

One last comments regarding current climate. I've already shown the graph of temps decreasing rapidly over the couple past year.

We also have something interesting going on w/ the Sun. The present sunspot cycle has been virtually inactive over the past year-15 months -- the weakest it's been for this duration for several decades. We're in cycle 23 right now - note the graph below. Our current sunspot cycle -- depicted by the purple line -- is lower than the past 4 cycles:

As mentioned earlier in the post -- low sunspots cycles have correlated to colder periods in Earth's history. I'm not saying we're headed for an ice age, but I do believe global temps will continue to cool due to the following factors:

1) PDO cold cycle re-emerging (last cold cycle was 40s-70s).
2) Possible weakening solar constant as shown above -- big key -- if the next sunspot cycle is even lower than the current one, it's essentially a lock that global temps will be on the downward slope.
3) Third factor - not as important as the others, but we are beginning to enter the negative cyclic phase of the NAO-AO (as seen from the late 40s-late 70s).

With all of these negative factors, it isn't surprising that the temperature is plateauing. Should be a good tug-of-war with the greenhouse warming. What happens with there is even more CO2 in the atmosphere and these things turn around to their positive phase?

Quote

What I'm saying is this -- there is more than reasonable doubt concerning the human-induced global warming theory, which the media continues to push. Please don't get me wrong w/ this post - I'm all for renewable energy sources and green ideas; however, I believe the politics are unfortunately taking the forefront in this debate, which is a shame.

Anyway -- at the very least, global temps look to be leveling off/slowly decreasing from the past couple decades. We've already seen the Earth "turn the corner" with the cooling since 2000-2002, and particularly over the past year. The doomsday warming is based upon climate forecast models which 1) Only know as much as we put into them, 2) Cannot grasp the intricate interactions and processes that transpire in our atmosphere. 3) Co2 is less than 0.1% of the atmosphere, far too miniscule to have a significant impact on global climate. Main drivers here IMO are solar and natural-terrestrial cycles. Water vapor is the primary heat-holding gas - well accepted in the meteorological community.

*Just as an FYI - but even if Al Gore was correct for some strange reason - our climate system has numerous ways to counteract any human induced warming.

1) Increase in temps leads to more water vapor, thus more clouds, thus a negative feedback cycle begins -- cooling the earth due to cloudcover/precipitation.

Water vapor is also a strong greenhouse gas.

Quote

2) Gulf stream - if the entire northern ice cap melts as predicted by some, the thermohaline circulation of the Atlantic would shut-down, causing the northern hemisphere to cool drastically, thereby plunging us into another ice age.

The Arctic ice cap is sea ice, and wouldn't factor into the thermohaline circulation. If you are talking about Greenland melting, then we are already in a world of hurt by that point.

[Isotherm]

MN transplant, on Aug 4 2008, 07:41 PM, said:

Good to see someone looking at the topic with data. Let me show where I have differences in opinion with yours.
Looks good so far.
Actually, this has been a well-known issue for many years now. I have found the lag to be 800 years in most literature, but nonetheless it is several centuries. Through recent geologic times, temperature increases have preceded the rise in CO2. This is generally accepted to be due to solar variations due to orbital changes. What the climate community will tell you is that the solar changes can not have accounted for all of the temperature increase, however. What is required is a feedback from water vapor and CO2.
Another possibility for the mid-20th century plateau is the presence of sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere, the so-called global dimming theory.
What is not emphasized enough is that the CO2 forcing is on top of an already existing cycle. It isn't a one or the other type issue.
But Nitrogen and Oxygen are irrelevant to the greenhouse scenario. Your better comparison would be with water vapor, which is a stronger greenhouse gas. But water vapor is a true feedback.
I left this one it because it is an inaccurate graph in a couple of ways. First the temperature curve is wrong, as shown by the 1950 temperature being equivalent to the end of the 90s temperature. Secondly, it cuts off the "solar activity" right before the correlation breaks down. What we have seen is that by some measures solar increased to the 1950s, in others to the 1970s, but over and over it has been shown that solar activity ceased to directly correlate with temperature in the second half of the 20th century.
Actually, statements like that are coming from skeptics and solar-climate specialists. The analogy of turning off the sun makes no sense. It is more accurate to say that the sun has had a quasi-constant output for 3-5 decades.
The question is, how do you explain the periods preceding and following it. If the PDO is in control, then the role of solar in the first half of the century is thrown out the window. If solar is in control, then the PDO wouldn't have caused the late-century warming.

MN Transplant,

Thanks for the comments. Let me respond to your points:


"Actually, this has been a well-known issue for many years now. I have found the lag to be 800 years in most literature, but nonetheless it is several centuries. Through recent geologic times, temperature increases have preceded the rise in CO2. This is generally accepted to be due to solar variations due to orbital changes. What the climate community will tell you is that the solar changes can not have accounted for all of the temperature increase, however. What is required is a feedback from water vapor and CO2."

1) I should have expanded this one as I agree with everything here. Temp increases due to solar constant, but then you have a positive feedback cycle initiating w/ increased levels of water vapor. Then essentially a runaway train effect occurs as water vapor continues to rise, and consequently CO2 levels.


"Another possibility for the mid-20th century plateau is the presence of sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere, the so-called global dimming theory.
What is not emphasized enough is that the CO2 forcing is on top of an already existing cycle. It isn't a one or the other type issue.
But Nitrogen and Oxygen are irrelevant to the greenhouse scenario. Your better comparison would be with water vapor, which is a stronger greenhouse gas. But water vapor is a true feedback."

2) Here's my only problem with that -- wouldn't you agree that we're headed into "uncharted territory" as we've never seen an anthropogenic CO2 input into the atmosphere before. Therefore it's difficult to say how much impact the man made CO2 will have on temps considering it's an extremely small percentage compared to water vapor. As we've seen in the past, feedback cycles do occur after the 800 year lag - but how much of that temp increase is due to water vapor, rather than CO2? It's widely accepted from what I've read that water vapor is a more efficient heat-holding gas than CO2, but I'm not doubting CO2 may have a small say in the matter.

"The question is, how do you explain the periods preceding and following it. If the PDO is in control, then the role of solar in the first half of the century is thrown out the window. If solar is in control, then the PDO wouldn't have caused the late-century warming."

3) Here's a better graph illustrating solar vs. temp:

http://i36.tinypic.com/jtq4pv.jpg

My explanation is this -- the early century warming was due in good part by the positive PDO cycle. Notice the mid century cooling - a negative PDO cycle was dominate during that time, with steady levels of solar radiation. Then the 1980s-present featured a strengthening solar constant in conjunction with a positive PDO phase. This is important IMO as the past 20 years we've had both factors in favor of big time warming -- oceanic and solar.


"Actually, statements like that are coming from skeptics and solar-climate specialists. The analogy of turning off the sun makes no sense. It is more accurate to say that the sun has had a quasi-constant output for 3-5 decades."

4) Agree. That statement was somewhat tongue in cheek - as I'm sure you know some of these sensationalists who claim that the sun has absolutely no influence in our climate. That's what irks me. Sun is the driver of weather as we know it - without it there'd by no clouds, precip, air pressure circulations etc, and now they're telling me it doesn't matter? That's all I was getting at with that.

[PennMan]

Something is horribly wrong here. Reasonable debate backed by facts has no place in the climate change forum. :arrowhead:

[Isotherm]

MN transplant, on Aug 4 2008, 07:42 PM, said:

With all of these negative factors, it isn't surprising that the temperature is plateauing. Should be a good tug-of-war with the greenhouse warming. What happens with there is even more CO2 in the atmosphere and these things turn around to their positive phase?
Water vapor is also a strong greenhouse gas.
The Arctic ice cap is sea ice, and wouldn't factor into the thermohaline circulation. If you are talking about Greenland melting, then we are already in a world of hurt by that point.

Well, the next couple decades will be a huge test IMO. If temperatures continue on their present steady decline due to natural forcing mentioned, that in my mind will tend to discredit the anthropogenic CO2 input has a significant impact.

If, however, we remain steady overall the next couple decades, even with a neg PDO and decreasing solar constant, that it'd be more likely to say, human activities are definitely having some influence here.

If temperatures actually turn around and begin warming in the next couple decades - with a cold PDO, weakening solar, etc, then I think we know we're strongly effecting the climate with GHG emissions.

My bet is former option right now. I do believe a very small percentage of the recent warming could be due to anthropogenic CO2, but I don't see it nearly large enough to influence climate cyles, thereby dictating future global temps.

[Isotherm]

PennMan, on Aug 4 2008, 09:08 PM, said:

Something is horribly wrong here. Reasonable debate backed by facts has no place in the climate change forum. :arrowhead:

LOL. I take it this is not the norm?

[PennMan]

Isotherm, on Aug 4 2008, 09:35 PM, said:

LOL. I take it this is not the norm?

Far from it unfortunately.

[Isotherm]

PennMan, on Aug 4 2008, 09:47 PM, said:

Far from it unfortunately.

It's a shame this debate has become largely political. I've yet to see an actual scientific debate with reasonable supporting facts on each side. All you hear from the media is the AGW side of the story. And the fact that Al Gore turned down a recent invitation to debate climate change with another prominent scientist speaks volumes to me. It shows 1) That he really does not know his stuff 2)Is not willing to accept/hear the other side of the story, which IMO has a stronger arguement. But to each their own I guess.

[relic_hunter]

Outstanding discussion, thank you both for your thoughts.

[MN transplant]

Isotherm, on Aug 4 2008, 08:49 PM, said:

3) Here's a better graph illustrating solar vs. temp:

http://i36.tinypic.com/jtq4pv.jpg

My explanation is this -- the early century warming was due in good part by the positive PDO cycle. Notice the mid century cooling - a negative PDO cycle was dominate during that time, with steady levels of solar radiation. Then the 1980s-present featured a strengthening solar constant in conjunction with a positive PDO phase. This is important IMO as the past 20 years we've had both factors in favor of big time warming -- oceanic and solar.

I hadn't seen that version of the reconstruction before. Here's another:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/solar_irradiance_1611-2001.png

I guess I haven't seen any information that would back up your statement that the last 20 years (or 30) have had a + solar component to them. (take the last two graphs with a grain of salt, as the axes are stretched to make a certain point)

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/tsi/composite/pics/comp06_d41_61_0807.png

http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v327/donsutherland1/solar2.jpg

[ElTacoman]

MN transplant, on Aug 4 2008, 05:41 PM, said:

The question is, how do you explain the periods preceding and following it. If the PDO is in control, then the role of solar in the first half of the century is thrown out the window. If solar is in control, then the PDO wouldn't have caused the late-century warming.

I have already discussed many of the points Isotherm brought up previously with MNtransplant and others on here. Kudos to Isotherm for putting together all of the points as concisely as he did.

I want to address the above statement, though...as you stated in regards to CO2 or natural forcing, MN, it doesn't have to be all one or the other. The same applies to PDO and solar. I believe when one looks at the general trends for both, it is a reasonable assumption that both have probably played a role in the climate trends of the past century or so. They could even be linked in some way, who knows. But I have already made my arguments for why I believe the PDO cycle (or the oceanic shifts it represents) is the best explanation for the majority of the temperature trends in the 20th century. After that, I believe solar and to a lesser degree (probably) CO2 is responsible for the unerlying trend upwards.

[ElTacoman]

MN transplant, on Aug 4 2008, 05:42 PM, said:

With all of these negative factors, it isn't surprising that the temperature is plateauing. Should be a good tug-of-war with the greenhouse warming.

Ah, but here is the thing:

1. Solar cycle 23 was only a little bit weaker than the preceding two cycles. Significant negative solar forcing, such as a Dalton-type minimum, has not occurred yet.

2. The PDO, according to most researchers, only recently switched to its negative phase. Therefore, it is difficult to say how much it has even affected the temperature trends so far.

3. Global temperatures have been close to flat for the past 9-10 years. During that time, as noted above, solar activity was lower slightly and the PDO was largely still positive (though not as strongly positive as the 1977-1998 period).

Bottom line: if the recent plateau can be attributed to "negative factors", then CO2 forcing is relatively weak in comparison - as the negative natural forcings have not even been strongly negative yet.

[Lake Effect King]

ElTacoman, on Aug 5 2008, 01:15 PM, said:

Ah, but here is the thing:

1. Solar cycle 23 was only a little bit weaker than the preceding two cycles. Strongly negative solar forcing, such as a Dalton-type minimum, has not occurred yet.

2. The PDO, according to most researchers, only recently switched to its negative phase. Therefore, it is difficult to say how much it has even affected the temperature trends so far.

3. Global temperatures have been close to flat for the past 9-10 years. During that time, as noted above, solar activity was lower slightly and the PDO was largely still positive (though not as strongly positive as the 1977-1998 period).

Bottom line: if the recent plateau can be attributed to "negative factors", then CO2 forcing is relatively weak in comparison - as the negative natural forcings have not even been strongly negative yet.

Well, the only other possible explaination would be that the AGW forcings (CO2, methane...etc.) have subsided.....and although Al Gore has recently increased his carbon credit purchases, I don't think that has had too much of an impact, even though it has been deemed "substantial" by some in the climate know..... :arrowhead:

[paragon]

Lake Effect King, on Aug 5 2008, 01:36 PM, said:

Well, the only other possible explaination would be that the AGW forcings (CO2, methane...etc.) have subsided.....and although Al Gore has recently increased his carbon credit purchases, I don't think that has had too much of an impact, even though it has been deemed "substantial" by some in the climate know..... :arrowhead:

I say the culprit is Nitrous Oxide...but then again....it nothing to laugh about!......lol

[Lake Effect King]

paragon, on Aug 5 2008, 01:58 PM, said:

I say the culprit is Nitrous Oxide...but then again....it nothing to laugh about!......lol

Skip to 1:30.........

nJeRlKfaBhE

[paragon]

Lake Effect King, on Aug 5 2008, 02:13 PM, said:

Skip to 1:30.........

nJeRlKfaBhE

LOL....and the defense rests!

[Isotherm]

Here's an interesting graph regarding the sunspot cycles -- I think this one illustrates the discussion better. ElTacoman and I were making reference to the effect of the PDO in terms of 20th century temperature variations -- I believe MN Transplant was noting how the 1960s featured peak solar constant, yet global temperatures decreased slightly during that time frame. How could this be if solar activity has significant influence? Well here's where the PDO comes into play. As Eltacoman mentioned earlier, I also believe the cold PDO phase of the 1960s-1970s aided in "masking" the effects of a higher solar constant. However, once we saw the reversal to a warm PDO regime by 1994-95, global temperatures skyrocketed as we had two major/favorable factors for warmth -- +PDO and high solar. That's why IMO we began to see such a sharp increase in global temps during the 1920s-50s as not only was the solar increasing but the PDO was also in a positive/warm phase. Once we hit the mid 20th century, temps steadied due to the PDO flip negative.


http://i33.tinypic.com/15xa8vo.jpg



In terms of the future -- latest sunspot data indicated the sun continues to sleep into early August. Below is the expected sunspot number into 09-10:


http://i36.tinypic.com/xc3y9g.jpg


Will be interesting to track this - as the trajectory of this cycle's sunspot curve suggests to me that we may continue w/ near-minimum conditions at least through the beginning of 2009, maybe even longer. Some scientists are forecasting Cycle 24 to be stronger than 23, but many are the same ones that forecasted a sharp ramp-up in 2006 (which hasn't happened). Lots of speculation with regards to this. If Cycle 24 is about half of the current one, it'll be interesting to see how global temperatures react.