THE SUN'S CHILLY IMPACT ON EARTH

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

A new NASA computer climate model [from December 06, 2001] the long-standing theory that low solar activity could have changed the atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere from the 1400s to the 1700s and triggered a "Little Ice Age" in several regions including North America and Europe. Changes in the sun's energy was one of the biggest factors influencing climate change during this period, but have since been superceded by greenhouse gases due to the industrial revolution.

During the Little Ice Age, access to Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s. At the same time, canals in Holland routinely froze solid, glaciers advanced in the Alps, and sea-ice increased so much that no open water was present in any direction around Iceland in 1695.

During the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, from 1645 to 1715, there is believed to have been a decrease in the total energy output from the Sun, as indicated by little or no sunspot activity. Known as the Maunder Minimum, astronomers of the time observed only about 50 sunspots for a 30-year period as opposed to a more typical 40-50,000 spots. The Sun normally shows signs of variability, such as its eleven-year sunspot cycle. Within that time, it goes from a minimum to a maximum period of activity represented by a peak in sunspots and flare activity.

Beginning in 1611, Galileo Galilei made drawings of lower sunspot activity before the Maunder Minimum. Records of sunspot activity during the Minimum from other astronomers confirm the lower number of sunspots over the70 year event.

During those periods of low solar activity, levels of the Sun's ultraviolet radiation decrease, and can significantly impact ozone formation in the stratosphere. "The changes in ozone that we modeled were key in producing the enhanced response," Shindell said. "The changes in the upper atmosphere then feed down to the surface climate."

Between the mid-1600s and the early 1700s the Earth's surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere appear to have been at or near their lowest values of the last millennium. European winter temperatures over that time period were reduced by 1.8 to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1-1.5 Celsius). This cool down is evident through derived temperature readings from tree rings and ice cores, and in historical temperature records, as gathered by the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and the University of Virginia.

"The period of low solar activity in the middle ages led to atmospheric changes that seem to have brought on the Little Ice Age. However, we need to keep in mind that variations in solar output have had far less impact on the Earth's recent climate than human actions," Shindell said. "The biggest catalyst for climate change today are greenhouse gases," he added.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011207iceage.html

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The little ice age killed many and locked up fresh water in glaciers. Warmth is more beneficial to animal life than cold.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The little ice age killed many and locked up fresh water in glaciers. Warmth is more beneficial to animal life than cold.

I like the little bit of, well, the sun did this, but not anymore! Science with an agenda! You gotta love it!

[luckytxn 2,265]

Thank God the industrial revolution ramped up and warmed us up a tad.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Thank God the industrial revolution ramped up and warmed us up a tad.

You mean this last winter could have been worse?

[luckytxn 2,265]

You mean this last winter could have been worse?

You bet.

[luckytxn 2,265]

I wanted to show this article that gave me a chuckle. Note the last part where Trenbeth said they have no answers YET. I laughed as I know they are poring over many thousands of models to cherry pick one that will fit it to their preconceived ideas that this is caused by us mere humans. Also look at the first part where it says that there are trillions of dollars at stake to shelled out. We always say to follow the money.

ANALYSIS-Scientists examine causes for lull in warming

25 Feb 2010 14:59:01 GMT

Source: Reuters

* Exact causes unknown for lack of warming from 1999-2008

* The underlying reason for cold winter not known

* Climate science in focus after email scandal, errors

By Gerard Wynn and Alister Doyle

LONDON/OSLO, Feb 25 (Reuters) - Climate scientists must do more to work out how exceptionally cold winters or a dip in world temperatures fit their theories of global warming, if they are to persuade an increasingly sceptical public.

At stake is public belief that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet, and political momentum to act as governments struggle to agree a climate treaty which could direct trillions of dollars into renewable energy, away from fossil fuels.

Public conviction of global warming's risks may have been undermined by an error in a U.N. panel report exaggerating the pace of melt of Himalayan glaciers and by the disclosure of hacked emails revealing scientists sniping at sceptics, who leapt on these as evidence of data fixing.

Scientists said they must explain better how a freezing winter this year in parts of the northern hemisphere and a break in a rising trend in global temperatures since 1998 can happen when heat-trapping gases are pouring into the atmosphere.

"There is a lack of consensus," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, on why global temperatures have not matched a peak set in 1998, or in 2005 according to one U.S. analysis. For a table of world temperatures: [iD:nLDE6050Y5]

Part of the explanation could be a failure to account for rapid warming in parts of the Arctic, where sea ice had melted, and where there were fewer monitoring stations, he said.

"I think we need better analysis of what's going on on a routine basis so that everyone, politicians and the general public, are informed about our current understanding of what is happening, more statements in a much quicker fashion instead of waiting for another six years for the next IPCC report."

The latest, fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was published in 2007 and the next is due in 2014.

The proportion of British adults who had no doubt climate change was happening had dropped in January to 31 percent from 44 percent in January 2009, an Ipsos MORI poll showed this week.

HOTTEST DECADE ON RECORD

The decade 2000-2009 was the hottest since 1850 as a result of warming through the 1980s and 1990s which has since peaked, says the World Meteorological Organisation.

British Hadley Centre scientists said last year that there was no warming from 1999-2008, after allowing for extreme, natural weather patterns. Temperatures should have risen by a widely estimated 0.2 degrees Centigrade, given a build up of manmade greenhouse gases.

"Solar might be one part of it," said the Hadley's Jeff Knight, adding that changes in the way data was gathered could be a factor, as well as shifts in the heat stored by oceans.

The sun goes through phases in activity, and since 2001 has been in a downturn meaning it may have heated the earth a little less, scientists say.

"We've not put our finger precisely on what has changed," Knight said. "(But) If you add all these things together ... there's nothing really there to challenge the idea that there's going to be large warming in the 21st century."

Melting Arctic ice was evidence for continuing change, regardless of observed temperatures, said Stein Sandven, head of the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center in Norway.

"The long-term change for the Arctic sea ice has been very consistent. It shows a decline over these (past) three decades especially in the summer. In the past 3-4 years Arctic sea ice has been below the average for the last 30 years."

Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, told Reuters that the IPCC stood by its 2007 findings that it is more than 90 percent certain that human activities are the main cause of global warming in the past 50 years.

"I think the findings are overall very robust. We've made one stupid error on the Himalayan glaciers. I think that there is otherwise so much solid science." The IPCC wrongly predicted that Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035.

NATURAL CAUSES?

One long-running doubter of the threat of climate change, Richard Lindzen, meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said a lull in warming was unsurprising, given an earlier "obsessing about tenths of a degree" in the 1980s and early 1990s.

The world warmed 0.7-0.8 degrees Celsius over the last century. Lindzen expected analysis to show in a few years' time that recent warming had natural causes. "It just fluctuates. I think the best explanation is the ocean. The timescale for ocean circulations can be decades."

He dismissed recent ice melt over a short, 30-year record.

Pachauri said that scientists had to unpick manmade global warming from natural influences -- such as the sun and cyclical weather patterns -- also dubbed "natural variability".

"Natural variability is not magic, there is movement of energy around the climate system and we should be able to track it," said Trenberth.

Trenberth attributed the cold winter to an extraordinary weather pattern not seen since 1977 which had curbed prevailing westerly winds across the northern hemisphere, and said that the underlying cause was "one we don't have answers to."

link: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE61N0TR.htm

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

And yet, I have been blasted twice, over the last two days, by folks saying that scientists have complex models to show them everything they need to know about climate change.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

We'll know soon enough, Sunspot activity peaked in about 2001 and dropped to Nil in 08. Current estimates say the activity has been unusual and may indicate another minimum. So basically we need to watch over the next decade or so to see how this cycle goes.

[luckytxn 2,265]

And yet, I have been blasted twice, over the last two days, by folks saying that scientists have complex models to show them everything they need to know about climate change.

LOL. You wouldn't be blasted if it showed they were right. I have seen sites that took the models the scientists used and reversed them to show they couldn't follow what actually happened in the past. This happens when scientists cherry pick models to fit preconceived notions. Now the best models are the ones that take the actual data from the past and shows pretty much what to expect in the future but these just show pretty much what we can do on our own with common sense and are boring. These models can even predict blips that happen sometime because warming or cooling happens now and again over many years but the climate always resumes the same eventually.

Of course to have trillions of dollars at stake to shell out would mean that the scientists would have to really stretch to show that it was worth the money to shell out. It would also entail that the politicians and media would have to be on board and advance that agenda all in lock step. To get the politicians and media and scientists to go all in one direction is to pay them off and anyone following the money trail can see that is what has happened.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The liberal hive-mind thinks Global climate should not change. They make creationists sound reasonable.