PDA

View Full Version : New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?


BuilderBob
10-08-2008, 04:46 AM
The SUN is doing its thing nicely. :D

LINK (http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm)

New Little Ice Age
Instead of Global Warming?

by Dr. Theodor Landscheidt


Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity
Klammerfelsweg 5, 93449 Waldmuenchen, Germany


Abstract:

Analysis of the sun's varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC's speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8° C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the 80 to 90-year Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun's oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove skillful as other long-range forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun's orbital motion, have turned out correct as for instance the prediction of the last three El Niños years before the respective event.

1. Introduction

The continuing debate about man-made global warming has reached a crucial stage. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), no longer publishes well defined “best estimate projections” of global temperature rise to the year 2100 caused by increases in greenhouse gas accumulations in the atmosphere, but publicizes “storylines” to speculate about warming as high as 5.8° C till 2100. The editors of the journal Science (2002), however, comment on the increasing number of publications that point to varying solar activity as a strong factor in climate change: “As more and more wiggles matching the waxing and waning of the sun show up in records of past climate, researchers are grudgingly taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate change. They have included solar variability in their simulations of the past century's warming. And the sun seems to have played a pivotal role in triggering droughts and cold snaps.”

Those scientists who are “grudgingly” beginning to acknowledge the sun's pivotal role in climate change are converts who had believed in the IPCC's dictum that “solar forcing is considerably smaller than the anthropogenic radiative forces” and its “level of scientific understanding is very low”, whereas forcing by well mixed greenhouse gases “continues to enjoy the highest confidence levels” as to its scientific understanding so that it is “unlikely that natural forcing can explain the warming in the latter half of the 20th century.” Actually, there had been a host of publications since the 19th century and especially in recent decades that provided evidence of strong solar-terrestrial relations in meteorology and climate ignored by proponents of man-made global warming (Koppen, 1873; Clough, 1905; Brooks; 1926; Scherhag, 1952; Bossolasco et al., 1973; Reiter, 1983; Eddy, 1976; Hoyt, 1979; Markson, 1980; Schuurmans, 1979; Landscheidt, 1981-2001; Bucha 1983; Herman and Goldberg, 1983; Neubauer 1983; Prohaska and Willett, 1983; Fairbridge and Shirley, 1987; Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1991; Labitzke and van Loon, 1993; Haigh, 1996; Baliunas and Soon, 1995; Lassen and Friis-Christensen, 1995); Lau and Weng, 1995; Lean et al, 1995; Hoyt and Schatten, 1997; Reid, 1997; Soon et al. 1996; Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, 1997; White et al. 1997; Cliver et al., 1998; Balachandran et al., 1999; Shindell et al., 1999; van Geel et al., 1999; Berner, 2000; Egorova et al., 2000; Palle Bago and Butler, 2000; Tinsley, 2000; Hodell et al., 2001; Neff et al., 2001; Rozelot, 2001; Udelhofen and Cess, 2001; Pang and Yau, 2002; Yu, 2002)

The IPCC's judgement that the solar factor is negligible is based on satellite observations available since 1978 which show that the Sun's total irradiance, though not being constant, changes only by about 0.1 percent during the course of the 11-year sunspot cycle. This argument, however, does not take into account that the Sun's eruptional activity (energetic flares, coronal mass ejections, eruptive prominences), heavily affecting the solar wind, as well as softer solar wind contributions by coronal holes have a much stronger effect than total irradiance. The total magnetic flux leaving the Sun, dragged out by the solar wind, has risen by a factor of 2.3 since 1901 (Lockwood et al., 1999), while global temperature on earth increased by about 0.6°C. The energy in the solar flux is transferred to the near-Earth environment by magnetic reconnection and directly into the atmosphere by charged particles. Energetic flares increase the Sun's ultraviolet radiation by at least 16 percent. Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs this excess energy which causes local warming and circulation disturbances. General circulation models developed by Haigh (1996), Shindell et al. (1999), and Balachandran et al. (1999) confirm that circulation changes, initially induced in the stratosphere, can penetrate into the troposphere and influence temperature, air pressure, Hadley circulation, and storm tracks by changing the distribution of large amounts of energy already present in the atmosphere.

CONTINUES.. (http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm)

southerncross
10-08-2008, 08:55 AM
researchers are grudgingly taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate change. They have included solar variability in their simulations of the past century's warming. And the sun seems to have played a pivotal role in triggering droughts and cold snaps.”

Those scientists who are “grudgingly” beginning to acknowledge the sun's pivotal role in climate change are converts who had believed in the IPCC's dictum that “solar forcing is considerably smaller than the anthropogenic radiative forces” and its “level of scientific understanding is very low”, whereas forcing by well mixed greenhouse gases “continues to enjoy the highest confidence levels” as to its scientific understanding so that it is “unlikely that natural forcing can explain the warming in the latter half of the 20th century.” Actually, there had been a host of publications since the 19th century and especially in recent decades that provided evidence of strong solar-terrestrial relations in meteorology and climate ignored by proponents of man-made global warming (Koppen, 1873; Clough, 1905; Brooks; 1926; Scherhag, 1952; Bossolasco et al., 1973; Reiter, 1983; Eddy, 1976; Hoyt, 1979; Markson, 1980; Schuurmans, 1979; Landscheidt, 1981-2001; Bucha 1983; Herman and Goldberg, 1983; Neubauer 1983; Prohaska and Willett, 1983; Fairbridge and Shirley, 1987; Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1991; Labitzke and van Loon, 1993; Haigh, 1996; Baliunas and Soon, 1995; Lassen and Friis-Christensen, 1995); Lau and Weng, 1995; Lean et al, 1995; Hoyt and Schatten, 1997; Reid, 1997; Soon et al. 1996; Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, 1997; White et al. 1997; Cliver et al., 1998; Balachandran et al., 1999; Shindell et al., 1999; van Geel et al., 1999; Berner, 2000; Egorova et al., 2000; Palle Bago and Butler, 2000; Tinsley, 2000; Hodell et al., 2001; Neff et al., 2001; Rozelot, 2001; Udelhofen and Cess, 2001; Pang and Yau, 2002; Yu, 2002)

You would think that "Scientist's" really would take the SUN as one of the most, if not the most influential factor when looking at causes of Global warming, not only the Orbit of the Earth around the sun but also the orbit of the Milky Way Galaxy could have effect's on our Climate due to solar winds and radiation fields that the earth could pass through.

Another factor is Orbital forcing the slight changes that the orbit of the Earth undergoes while circling the Sun.
Orbital forcing describes the effect on climate of slow changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis and shape of the orbit (see Milankovitch cycles). These orbital changes change the total amount of sunlight reaching the Earth by up to 25% at mid-latitudes (from 400 to 500 Wm-2 at latitudes of 60 degrees). In this context, the term "forcing" signifies a physical process that affects the Earth's climate.

This mechanism is believed to be responsible for the timing of the ice age cycles. A strict application of the Milankovitch theory does not allow the prediction of a "sudden" ice age (rapid being anything under a century or two), since the fastest orbital period is about 20,000 years. The timing of past glacial periods coincides very well with the predictions of the Milankovitch theory, and these effects can be calculated into the future.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_forcing

Things that can bring about huge changes in the worlds climate but have nothing at all to do with our influence on the planet at all, um unless you look at things like this.

Cumulative Effects
By J.B. Ruhl

Move over Global Climate Change--Rapid Orbital Decay (ROD) puts you to shame.

Research to be published in the journal Astronometica next week discusses findings by researchers at the Canadian Solar and Planetary Institute (CANSPI) showing that the Earth's orbital decay rate has spiked in the past 50 years. All planets experience orbital decay, explained CANSPI research team leader Gustaf Housty, but "Earth's is getting out of synch. Basically we're falling into the sun faster than we should be. If this keeps up, we'll reach Maximum Critical Ambient Temperature (MAXCAT), the temperature at which life as we know it on Earth is no longer possible, about two billion years sooner than we should under natural conditions."

Researchers are still debating the cause of ROD, but the prevailing theory is...buildings. That's right, the accumulated effect of buildings, especially when concentrated in cities, has been to put some drag on Earth's rotational speed, which has a negative effect on orbital speed. Also, the weight of buildings has shifted Earth's overall center of balance, which has thrown us off orbit just a bit. But as Housty explained, "you don't have to alter these things much to get some pretty dramatic effects in terms of ROD."

According to Housty's model, if we were to stop erecting any new buildings today, ROD would continue and lead to Earth reaching MAXCAT in about 2.3 billion years, which is way ahead of schedule. If we were to keep erecting buildings at the current pace, however, we'll hit MAXCAT in about 1.2 billion years. Housty observed that "it may not mean much in the next 100 years, but I wouldn't want to be around in a billion years. It's going to get really hot."
http://jurisdynamics.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-findings-on-rapid-orbital-decay.html

I have a wart on my big toe that is associated with a particular type of ingrown toe nail and I'm fairly sure that this is the reason that Hurricane Katrina or (insert any nasty storm, global warming, Cold Winters, Ice shelf retreat here) struck such and such a place, I am sure that if I can just convince the current policy makers that this is a real issue (as it most undoubtedly is) that they could ensure funding for this most vital research. I have a Hockey stick to prove it.

dbuk
10-08-2008, 09:32 AM
This paper was not peer reviewed.

This paper is over five years old.

The paper was an adpatation of a paper first written in 1995 which predicted global cooling starting in 1999.

The author is not a qualified climatologist.

The Author described himself as a Astrologer and amatuer climatologist.

His Institute was made up of one man - himself.

His work has been largely criticicsed by climatologists.

Flint
10-08-2008, 09:49 AM
You would think that "Scientist's" really would take the SUN as one of the most, if not the most influential factor when looking at causes of Global warmingNope, you would not. You would look at changes in solar intensity. What we're talking about here is NOT "why the earth is warm." We're talking about why the temperature is CHANGING. If solar intensity is not changing, then it is not changing. This concept seems extremely difficult for someone to understand.

dbuk:

When the paper says what some people NEED to hear, it really doesn't matter if it was written by a paranoid schizophrenic ex-lawnmower mechanic now in an asylum. All that's necessary is not to mention these things and poof, they go all away. The Need To Believe trumps all rationality. The only interesting issue here, as you've said before, is WHY some people have such a powerful need in this case? We're really looking at small long-term changes, nothing to get real excited about.

southerncross
10-10-2008, 11:13 AM
Nope, you would not. You would look at changes in solar intensity. What we're talking about here is NOT "why the earth is warm." We're talking about why the temperature is CHANGING. If solar intensity is not changing, then it is not changing. This concept seems extremely difficult for someone to understand.
so I would ask what the biggest influence of temperature on the Earth is? Does the Earths orbit change? Does the influence of the Sun change with the changing orbit of the Earth? Could the aspect of the Earth, influence the surface temperature of the Earth.? Look's like it might. Is it our fault?