Global cooling

otisptoadwater wrote: IMHO there hasn't been enough data collected on a global basis to know which way the weather will trend in the future. Yes at some point in the future there is speculation that the sun will become a red giant and engulf Earth. Do we know anything about the future for certain? I say NO.

otis, I posted this thread <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href=" 285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10903&hilit=temp " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10903&hilit=temp<!-- l --> a while back - it's a look back on what climatologists have predicted in the recent past, and how close they've come on their predictions (answer: spot on most of the time), and what the predictions are for the coming year, so we can watch to see how well they do yet again. There has been enough data collected for them to make pretty accurate short-term predictions, and create a range of scenarios for the future that all depend on how much or how little we attempt to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, or continue business-as-usual.

Viking, have you ever heard me use Gore in any of my posts when explaining the science? Do you honestly think me naive, or that I'd take that man's word for anything having to do with climatology?

(And, yes, I do still get to vote, and I do!)

BTW, here's some recent numbers on who agrees that it's a real, and serious issue.
http://www.desmogblog.com/report-broad- ... ate-change
Report: Broad Bipartisan Support For Action On Climate Change
15 June 11

A new report by George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication shows that voters in America are concerned about global climate change, and would support broad action by the federal government to prevent future disaster. The report shows that voters from both major political parties are at odds with most Republicans in Washington, who have made it clear that they are not concerned with climate change and their voting records reflect that lack of concern.

Here are some of the key findings from George Mason University’s report:

71 percent of Americans say global warming should be a very high (13%), high (27%), or medium (31%) priority for the president and Congress, including 50 percent of Republicans, 66 percent of Independents and 88 percent of Democrats.

91 percent of Americans say developing sources of clean energy should be a very high (32%), high (35%), or medium (24%) priority for the president and Congress, including 85 percent of Republicans, 89 percent of Independents, and 97 percent of Democrats.

Majorities of Americans want more action to address global warming from corporations (65%), citizens themselves (63%), the U.S. Congress (57%), President Obama (54%), as well as their own state and local officials.

Despite ongoing concerns about the economy, 67 percent of Americans say the U.S. should undertake a large (29%) or medium-scale effort (38%) to reduce global warming, even if it has large or moderate economic costs.

82 percent of Americans (including 76% of Republicans, 74% of Independents, and 94% of Democrats) say that protecting the environment either improves economic growth and provides new jobs (56%), or has no effect (26%). Only 18 percent say environmental protection reduces economic growth and costs jobs.

Large majorities (including Republicans, Independents, and Democrats) say it is important for their own community to take steps to protect the following from global warming: public health (81%), thewater supply (80%), agriculture (79%), wildlife (77%), and forests (76%).

84 percent of Americans support funding more research into renewable energy sources, including 81 percent of Republicans, 81 percent of Independents, and 90 percent of Democrats.

68 percent of Americans support requiring electric utilities to produce at least 20% of their electricity from renewable energy sources, even if it costs the average household an extra $100 a year, including 58 percent of Republicans, 64 percent of Independents, and 82 percent of Democrats.

Again, as these numbers from May 2011 show, both Republicans and Democrats support efforts to reduce climate change, and yet the Republican majority in Congress is doing everything in their power to prevent any climate action. This year alone, Republicans have voted 7 times to continue giving billions of dollars worth of subsidies to oil companies every year. They cut almost $900 million from the federal budget for research into renewable energy.

The actions being taken by Congress are clearly not in line with the desires of the American public.

Which is why I posted in the other thread the information about the Million Letter Campaign - it's important that we the public get behind this and force our representatives to do something about it, or votes their sorry asses right out and independents in.

Yet another weigh-in on how the reduced sunspots won't cause global cooling:
http://topicfire.com/share/Sunspot-Drop ... 66166.html
Sunspot Drop Won’t Cause Global Cooling
By Brandon Keim Email Author
June 15, 2011

More recently, in a 2010 Geophysical Research Letters study, Georg Fuelner and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research asked the question directly: What would happen if Earth experienced another 70-year-long solar minimum? “Global mean temperatures in the year 2100 would most likely be diminished by about 0.1°C,” wrote Rahmstorf and Fuelner. And even if their models and assumptions were so uncertain as to be off by a factor of three, that still puts the cooling at just 0.3 degrees Celsius, or about 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit.

Compared to the end-of-century global average temperature increase predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — about 5 degrees Fahrenheit under mid-range scenarios, and 7 degrees Fahrenheit under more realistic scenarios — solar cooling would be negligible. “A new Maunder‐type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions,” concluded Rahmstorf and Fuelner.

“The example I like to use is that greenhouse warming right now is the equivalent of 2 watts of power illuminating every square meter of the Earth’s surface. It’s like a Christmas tree light over every square meter. By mid-century, it will be closer to 4 watts,” said Mann, who was a co-author on that 2001 Science paper. “The maximum impact factor of the sun is 0.2 watts per meter squared.”