Earth facing a mini-Ice Age 'within ten years'

[biffvernon]

You mean you don't want to be attacked with derogatory expletives?

[JavaScriptDonkey]

JSD, your first pretty graph shows a 16 degree anomaly for the PETM.

Doh.

Any reason that it shouldn't?

Yes.

Puzzled.

Is it not Hansen's data?

I don't see any good news in this paper and it certainly isn't denying climate change.
It makes a solid prediction that global temperature will not increase within the next 100years without a change in cloud cover. As we'll be out of oil by then we won't have long to wait to see if it's a crock or not.

[clv101]

Despite your assertion otherwise, it is an accepted fact that climate has not continued to warm over the last 13 years, whilst CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to rise over that period. There are other periods in the last century when CO2 and temperature have not been in phase together. No matter how annoying this may be to some, it raises doubt about the connection between the two variables.

I haven't been following this thread, but I did just spot this paragraph and felt the need to comment. That CO2 concentrations and global average surface temperatures don't follow each other perfectly does not "raise doubt about the connection between the two variables". To even suggest that is the simplify the situation to the absurd.

There are dozens interlinked and overlapping, related and unrelated to one another, long term and short term processes that together influence surface temperature - then there's also many depths of the ocean and heights of the atmosphere where energy can increase or decrease.

The concentration of CO2 is one factor of many, the influence of which can be totally over by others over various timescales (daily, seasonally, multi-yearly). And surface temperature only one metric.

[RenewableCandy]

Despite your assertion otherwise, it is an accepted fact that climate has not continued to warm over the last 13 years, whilst CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to rise over that period.

Yes, because there are other factors influencing temperature, like solar cycles, amount of soot in the atmosphere (e.g. from China), El Nino and North Atlantic Oscillations, etc.

And in fact, the last 10 years have contained a disproprtionate number of the 10 hottest years ever, including (iirc) last year.

I personally think that even if we never manage to "prove AGW beyond reasonable doubt" (it's pretty-well there, but...) there are other problems with enhanced levels of CO_2 in the atmosphere, chief of which is its acidifying effect on the sea. And this can't be offset by geoengineering projects like increasing the earth's albedo.

[biffvernon]

And surface temperature only one metric.

A pretty poor metric at that when one considers a comparison of the thermal capacity of the atmosphere with that of the deep oceans.

Of course the planet has been warming continuously for the last 13 years (and more). We've wrapped it up in a dirty great blanket and left the heating on.

It's no good pretending, just because you've stuck your thermometer in the wrong place.

[snow hope]

That CO2 concentrations and global average surface temperatures don't follow each other perfectly does not "raise doubt about the connection between the two variables". To even suggest that is the simplify the situation to the absurd.

Well according to the IPCC AR4, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.[8] This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations”

So if you will not accept the fact that global temperatures have not risen over the last 13 years, despite ever increasing CO2 rises, does not cause doubt on GHG causality, then would you accept that if global temperatures don't rise over the coming 13 years, that it may cause some doubt?

There are dozens interlinked and overlapping, related and unrelated to one another, long term and short term processes that together influence surface temperature - then there's also many depths of the ocean and heights of the atmosphere where energy can increase or decrease.

Exactly!

The concentration of CO2 is one factor of many, the influence of which can be totally over by others over various timescales (daily, seasonally, multi-yearly). And surface temperature only one metric.

Agreed. Which makes one question why the IPCC are said to be 95% certain that the majority of the global warming that has ocurred over the last 25 years is down to mankind.

[fifthcolumn]

If this happens then it may be what stops humans from creating a Venus-style runaway warming on the Earth. Not that this will save industrialised, globalised civilisation.

No. The fact that even at 12800 ppm we get only 5C of warming due to greenhouse gases means that we will never get a Venus style runaway warming on the Earth.

[snow hope]

Sun continues to go quiet, baffling solar scientists....... maybe at a rate faster than anytime in the last 10,000 years.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25743806

[adam2]

Too many PV modules !
Sunlight being depleted.

[kenneal - lagger]

Too many PV modules !
Sunlight being depleted.

[biffvernon]

Oh Lord, the denialist have crept out again. Bonkers.

[kenneal - lagger]

FFS Biff. Just because a person believes the sun is getting cooler for a few years doesn't mean that they don't believe in CC/GW.

Some solar scientists are saying that the drop in sunspot numbers hasn't been seen since the time of the Maunder Minimum, although Landschiedt predicted that this minimum wouldn't be as bad or as long as that, but they are also saying that CC/GW is going on underneath so the temperature drops may not be as great.

You have to go with the science on this unless you want to be seen as one of those anti science "Cooling Deniers" who have about as much credibility as an AGW denier. It is also not certain whether or not the Maunder Minimum only affected the northern hemisphere while global temperatures were, in the main, unaffected. It is developing science and comments such as "Oh Lord, the denialist have crept out again. Bonkers." do not add much to the scientific debate.

[biffvernon]

I wasn't adding to the scientific debate, just making an observation.

If I had wanted to add to the scientific debate I might have said something about the relative strength of signal of solar variance, but I didn't bother, as I doubt there would have been much point.

[snow hope]

So what were you trying to say Biff? Who were the denialists you were referring to?

[biffvernon]

So if you will not accept the fact that global temperatures have not risen over the last 13 years, despite ever increasing CO2 rises, does not cause doubt on GHG causality, then would you accept that if global temperatures don't rise over the coming 13 years, that it may cause some doubt?

A lot of negatives in there but the important point is that global temperatures, i.e. the total heat of the planet, has continued to increase. If you're talking about average surface temperature measurements, well that's like diagnosing influenza by holding a thermometer between your toes. 93% of the excess heat trapped by anthropogenic greenhouse gasses is in the ocean, much of it too deep to be measured.
But hey, what am I doing wasting my time on this?