Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

"The correlation of reconstructed solar irradiance and Northern Hemisphere (NIl) surface temperature is 0.86 in the pre-industrial period from 1610 to 1800, implying a predominant solar influence. Extending this correlation to the present suggests that solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55"C surface warming since 1860 and one third of the warming since 1970." - Lean et al, Geophysical Research

https://works.bepress.com/raymond_bradley/52/

Publication Date
December, 1995

Meanwhile. some more current science

Small influence of solar variability on climate over the past millennium

Andrew P. Schurer, Simon F. B. Tett & Gabriele C. Hegerl

Nature Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo2040

Received 02 August 2013 Accepted 14 November 2013 Published online 22 December 2013

The climate of the past millennium was marked by substantial decadal and centennial scale variability in the Northern Hemisphere. Low solar activity has been linked to cooling during the Little Ice Age (AD 1450–1850; ref. 1) and there may have been solar forcing of regional warmth during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (AD 950–1250; ref. 1). The amplitude of the associated changes is, however, poorly constrained with estimates of solar forcing spanning almost an order of magnitude. Numerical simulations tentatively indicate that a small amplitude best agrees with available temperature reconstructions. Here we compare the climatic fingerprints of high and low solar forcing derived from model simulations with an ensemble of surface air temperature reconstructions for the past millennium. Our methodology also accounts for internal climate variability and other external drivers such as volcanic eruptions, as well as uncertainties in the proxy reconstructions and model output. We find that neither a high magnitude of solar forcing nor a strong climate effect of that forcing agree with the temperature reconstructions. We instead conclude that solar forcing probably had a minor effect on Northern Hemisphere climate over the past 1,000 years, while, volcanic eruptions and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations seem to be the most important influence over this period.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate

OPEN ACCESS FOCUS ON HIGH ENERGY PARTICLES AND ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES

T Sloan and A W Wolfendale 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 045022
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045022

Abstract

Although it is generally believed that the increase in the mean global surface temperature since industrialization is caused by the increase in green house gases in the atmosphere, some people cite solar activity, either directly or through its effect on cosmic rays, as an underestimated contributor to such global warming. In this letter a simplified version of the standard picture of the role of greenhouse gases in causing the global warming since industrialization is described. The conditions necessary for this picture to be wholly or partially wrong are then introduced. Evidence is presented from which the contributions of either cosmic rays or solar activity to this warming is deduced. The contribution is shown to be less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum

Sarah Ineson, Amanda C. Maycock, Lesley J. Gray, Adam A. Scaife, Nick J. Dunstone, Jerald W. Harder, Jeff R. Knight, Mike Lockwood, James C. Manners & Richard A. Wood

Nature Communications 6, Article number: 7535 doi:10.1038/ncomms8535

Received 23 May 2014 Accepted 14 May 2015 Published 23 June 2015Article tools

Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It is already noticeable in Miami.

The Siege of Miami - The New Yorker

Jack,

I ask you a sincere question, then you chop and paste part of my question and respond with a sensational headline.

Can't you do better than that? Please, let's try again.....

Here's the question in its entirety:

"Jack,

Heading back to post #1 again:

Why do you feel that humans living hundreds of years from now will be unable to move a few miles inland if their coastline changes, and will starve to death as a result of increased greening?

If all your predictions come true, the change (8 inches sea rise over a 100 year period) will hardly be noticed... even by those living at waterfront properties."

Me thinks that you'd give your middle school students an "F" grade if they responded the same way.

Ken

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It is already noticeable in Miami.

The Siege of Miami - The New Yorker

Super moon tides have been affecting it for centuries. If it really is sea level rise why isn't it apparent in other areas around the world. Remember just a few pages back or possible on the Arctic cruising thread . It was pointed out via NOAA data that sea levels are not rising around the globe. Infact some areas were showing a decrease n sea levels. I would be more inclined to believe that either subduction/erosion are to blame or the more likely that it happens yearly. Good fluff piece to be a rally cry for agw to use.
An actual sea level rise of that magnitude would not be concentrated . I bet there was a storm offshore that coincided with the king tides to push the water higher than normal in that local area.

[newhaul]

I just finished the article jack posted and they made several claims in it that have already been refuted and proven false by imperial data that has been shared on this thread at least a hundred pages ago.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It is already noticeable in Miami.

The Siege of Miami - The New Yorker

Sorry if it looks like I am picking on you Jack, but this is just more pseudo-scientific poppycock.

Miami doesn't get it feet wet due to sea level rise from global warming because there has hardly been any yet. CP - Abstract - Tropical Pacific spatial trend patterns in observed sea level: internal variability and/or anthropogenic signature?

Miami is getting its feet wet because they chose to build a major city in a place with an average elevation above sea level of 6 feet! If predictions of sea level increase prove to be correct, and there is a lot of data to suggest they won't be, then Miami can build a dike. That will be far cheaper than the world spending trillions further impoverishing poor people through inflated energy costs and all to accomplish virtually nothing in terms of impact on eventually warming.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Meanwhile. some more current science

Small influence of solar variability on climate over the past millennium

Andrew P. Schurer, Simon F. B. Tett & Gabriele C. Hegerl

Nature Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo2040

Received 02 August 2013 Accepted 14 November 2013 Published online 22 December 2013

The climate of the past millennium was marked by substantial decadal and centennial scale variability in the Northern Hemisphere. Low solar activity has been linked to cooling during the Little Ice Age (AD 1450–1850; ref. 1) and there may have been solar forcing of regional warmth during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (AD 950–1250; ref. 1). The amplitude of the associated changes is, however, poorly constrained with estimates of solar forcing spanning almost an order of magnitude. Numerical simulations tentatively indicate that a small amplitude best agrees with available temperature reconstructions. Here we compare the climatic fingerprints of high and low solar forcing derived from model simulations with an ensemble of surface air temperature reconstructions for the past millennium. Our methodology also accounts for internal climate variability and other external drivers such as volcanic eruptions, as well as uncertainties in the proxy reconstructions and model output. We find that neither a high magnitude of solar forcing nor a strong climate effect of that forcing agree with the temperature reconstructions. We instead conclude that solar forcing probably had a minor effect on Northern Hemisphere climate over the past 1,000 years, while, volcanic eruptions and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations seem to be the most important influence over this period.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate

OPEN ACCESS FOCUS ON HIGH ENERGY PARTICLES AND ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES

T Sloan and A W Wolfendale 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 045022
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045022

Abstract

Although it is generally believed that the increase in the mean global surface temperature since industrialization is caused by the increase in green house gases in the atmosphere, some people cite solar activity, either directly or through its effect on cosmic rays, as an underestimated contributor to such global warming. In this letter a simplified version of the standard picture of the role of greenhouse gases in causing the global warming since industrialization is described. The conditions necessary for this picture to be wholly or partially wrong are then introduced. Evidence is presented from which the contributions of either cosmic rays or solar activity to this warming is deduced. The contribution is shown to be less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum

Sarah Ineson, Amanda C. Maycock, Lesley J. Gray, Adam A. Scaife, Nick J. Dunstone, Jerald W. Harder, Jeff R. Knight, Mike Lockwood, James C. Manners & Richard A. Wood

Nature Communications 6, Article number: 7535 doi:10.1038/ncomms8535

Received 23 May 2014 Accepted 14 May 2015 Published 23 June 2015Article tools

Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.

Either you don't read, or don't understand what you post. Read the last sentence of the last paper you quoted, that I have put in bold.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Jack,

Why do you feel that humans living hundreds of years from now will be unable to move a few miles inland if their coastline changes, and will starve to death as a result of increased greening?

Just exactly what do you think is greening? Leaves and trees!

Food crops increases are more closely correlated to increased irrigation, pesticide use and fertilizer use, none which is sustainable.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Either you don't read, or don't understand what you post. Read the last sentence of the last paper you quoted, that I have put in bold.

I read it. It applies to to Northern Europe.

For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Sorry if it looks like I am picking on you Jack, but this is just more pseudo-scientific poppycock.

Miami doesn't get it feet wet due to sea level rise from global warming because there has hardly been any yet. CP - Abstract - Tropical Pacific spatial trend patterns in observed sea level: internal variability and/or anthropogenic signature?

Last sentence. I know they are still waiting to detect the human influence.

While our analysis cannot rule out any influence of anthropogenic forcing, it concludes that the latter effect in that particular region is stillhardly detectable.

Meanwhile more current science

Here we revisit estimates of twentieth-century GMSL rise using probabilistic techniques9, 10 and find a rate of GMSL rise from 1901 to 1990 of 1.2 ± 0.2 millimetres per year (90% confidence interval). Based on individual contributions tabulated in the Fifth Assessment Report7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, this estimate closes the twentieth-century sea-level budget. Our analysis, which combines tide gauge records with physics-based and model-derived geometries of the various contributing signals, also indicates that GMSL rose at a rate of 3.0 ± 0.7 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2010, consistent with prior estimates from tide gauge records4. The increase in rate relative to the 1901–90 trend is accordingly larger than previously thought; this revision may affect some projections11 of future sea-level rise.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture14093.html

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I just finished the article jack posted and they made several claims in it that have already been refuted and proven false by imperial (sic) data that has been shared on this thread at least a hundred pages ago.

Really? You get your data from royalty?

Show us that refutation.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Really? You get your data from royalty?

Show us that refutation.

Sorry auto correct was supposed to be imperical data

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Super moon tides have been affecting it for centuries. If it really is sea level rise why isn't it apparent in other areas around the world. Remember just a few pages back or possible on the Arctic cruising thread . It was pointed out via NOAA data that sea levels are not rising around the globe. Infact some areas were showing a decrease n sea levels. I would be more inclined to believe that either subduction/erosion are to blame or the more likely that it happens yearly. Good fluff piece to be a rally cry for agw to use.
An actual sea level rise of that magnitude would not be concentrated . I bet there was a storm offshore that coincided with the king tides to push the water higher than normal in that local area.

A sailor would know that the cycle between Lowest Astronomical Tides is 18.5 years. Then you should be able to correlate LAT with Miami flooding.

Look forward to seeing it.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Sorry auto correct was supposed to be imperical (sic) data

You have one very poor auto correct.

Try "empirical".

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Just exactly what do you think is greening? Leaves and trees!

Food crops increases are more closely correlated to increased irrigation, pesticide use and fertilizer use, none which is sustainable.

Do you allow your 13 and 14 year old middle school students to answer your questions with a question?

Let's try once again... this time as extra credit to make up for your previous attempt. Please answer the entire question.

Yes, I'm referring to the "greening" you and others were discussing in previous pages as a result of increasing plant growth due to increased CO2.

It's a simple question really, kind of a gimme.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You have one very poor auto correct.

Try "empirical".

Jack actually a very messed up tablet I had to borrow its android based but requires apple based apps . My new tablet should be here within the week . ( also could be the lack of coffee I had earlier)