It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The "Maunder Minimum" was a particular event. There were other prolonged periods of low solar activity as well.
If the next solar minimum is a Maunder Minimum then we'll see temperatures like our ancestors saw in the late 1600's and early 1700's.
While the MM occurred within the much longer LIA period, the timing of the features are not suggestive of causation and should not, in isolation, be used as evidence of significant solar forcing of climate. Climate model simulations suggest multiple factors, particularly volcanic activity, were crucial for causing the cooler temperatures in the northern hemisphere during the LIA. A reduction in total solar irradiance likely contributed to the LIA at a level comparable to changing land use.
So any ice that melts in the north is not over a land mass per se, it's mostly water under it. How can that translate to being ice on land?
originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: 1point92AU
Let me be honest and directly to the point.
What does it matter if it is real or not? Really?
Here is why, the only "solutions" allowed are Financial Scams.
The push and alarmism is directly tied to pushing Financial Scams, Carbon Credit Scams, Taxes, and Special Interest Control & Regulation.
I have seen quite a few "real solutions" but nobody will talk about those since the "Right" people don't end up with Power, Money, and Control.
There you have it.
originally posted by: 1point92AU
a reply to: Phage
The Sun is the driver for weather patterns on Earth. Not man.
Just like the Earth's atmosphere is much larger than you ever knew.
Because if it's Man-Made, then the Democrats will make Billions of dollars in Carbon Taxes from all of us and will do nothing but steal it like they always do and we may or may not all die.
The fight against climate change is a marathon, not a sprint. The policies we craft today must fuel innovation and research for many decades to come. Public investment in clean-energy and carbon-capture technologies is laudable, but it’s not enough on its own to reduce global emissions, because of the “leakage” problem. Carbon taxes have, to be sure, been met with intense political resistance in many places where they’ve been proposed, including the U.S. But they are the most pragmatic solution and — importantly for conservatives — could be designed to be revenue-neutral and thus not result in an expansion of government. If Republicans hope to craft meaningful climate legislation in everyone’s long-term interests, a carbon tax is a necessary first step.
It isn't. The Sun is not getting warmer.
If it's Climate change from the SUN
SO2 causes pollution that blocks the sun.
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: 1point92AU
Yet clouds form from the particulate exhaust from industrial plants. This alters the local weather to an extent. Skyscrapers cause turbulent winds that also alters the local weather.
Industrialization has caused a 45% increase of atmospheric CO2, this is significant in terms of climatology.
I majored in meteorology, this is a hell of a lot more complex than 4th grade science.
You are essentially burying your head in the sand because the notion human activity can affect the weather and climate does not align with you confirmation bias.
I can tell you that the Volcano's will produce much more in a day of both CO2 and SO2.
Earth's total annual out-gassing of CO2 via volcanoes and through other geological processes such as the heating of limestone in mountain belts is newly estimated by DCO experts at roughly 300 to 400 million metric tonnes (0.3 to 0.4 Gt).
Manmade emissions in 2018 alone topped 37 gigatonnes.
"The amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by anthropogenic (manmade) activity in the last 10-12 years (is equivalent) to the catastrophic change during these events we've seen in Earth's past," Edmonds told AFP.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman
I will take your opinion under consideration.
Do you think those geologists are lying?
originally posted by: Phage
Thing is, according to the Milankovich cycles, the planet should have been cooling for the past few thousand years. It was, until a hundred or so ago. It's going to be a long time before the Earth starts warming because of the Milkankovitch cycles.
October 28, 2004
The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400 years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived thousands of years ago. As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal "Nature" from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades.
The Sun may have caused as much warming as carbon dioxide over three years.
An analysis of satellite data challenges the intuitive idea that decreasing solar activity cools Earth, and vice versa. In fact, solar forcing of Earth's surface climate seems to work the opposite way around — at least during the current Sun cycle.
Joanna Haigh, an atmospheric physicist at Imperial College London, and her colleagues analysed daily measurements of the spectral composition of sunlight made between 2004 and 2007 by NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite. They found that the amount of visible light reaching Earth increased as the Sun's activity declined — warming the Earth's surface. Their unexpected findings are published today in Nature1.
The full implications of the discovery are unclear. Haigh says that the current solar cycle could be different from previous cycles, for unknown reasons. But it is also possible that the effects of solar variability on atmospheric temperatures and ozone are substantially different from what has previously been assumed.
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: MrConspiracy
The excess CO2 is indeed from human activity. To deny this is like denying the plastic in the ocean is from humans.
This article was from 2007, now the CO2 levels are up to 410ppm.
The thing is the Earth was warming early in 1600, and even about 10-20 or so years before. According to global borehole temperatures the Earth's surface was already warming over 150-170 years before the Industrial revolution started. It was also warming 250-270 years before the height of the industrial revolution.
Your source does not say that Solar activity has not been declining since the 1980s. The data shows that it has been. Longer than that, actually.
The thing is, despite you lying for years in the forums claiming that the Sun's activity stopped increasing in the 1980s, in fact the opposite had been happening.
Since the study covered 2004-2007 there was is way of knowing if that was unusual. But it is useful knowledge.
Even in 2007 atmospheric psysicists realized that even when certain solar activity was at it's lowest, for some strange reason the visible light from the sun had increased and was/is warming the Earth more when it should have been cooler
"The findings could prove very significant when it comes to understanding, and quantifying, natural climate fluctuations," he says. "But no matter how you look at it, the Sun's influence on current climate change is at best a small natural add-on to man-made greenhouse warming."
"All the evidence is that the vast majority of warming is anthropogenic," agrees Lockwood. "It might be that the solar part isn't quite working the way we thought it would, but it is certainly not a seismic rupture of the science."
originally posted by: contextual
a reply to: infolurker
you know the people paid to push those fallacies get their money from the oil companies, right?
it's not the rich scientists versus you, its texaco and the like versus science.
if scientists were lying their credibility would be shot to pieces, it isn't.
Who said that? Not I.
To claim that "the amount of CO2 we have is just because of mankind" is one of the most absurd arguments made by leftists like yourself.
Yes. Because Solar Maximum was in 2014. That's the way it works. 11 year (roughly) cycle and all that.
The above link is from 2016. This trend has continued to increase.