The Sun and Global Warming

[JALU3]

From the National Geographic (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090504-sun-global-cooling.html):
Sun Oddly Quiet -- Hints at Next "Little Ice Age"?
Anne Minard
for National Geographic News
May 4, 2009

A prolonged lull in solar activity has astrophysicists glued to their telescopes waiting to see what the sun will do next—and how Earth's climate might respond.

The sun is the least active it's been in decades and the dimmest in a hundred years. The lull is causing some scientists to recall the Little Ice Age, an unusual cold spell in Europe and North America, which lasted from about 1300 to 1850.

The coldest period of the Little Ice Age, between 1645 and 1715, has been linked to a deep dip in solar storms known as the Maunder Minimum.

During that time, access to Greenland was largely cut off by ice, and canals in Holland routinely froze solid. Glaciers in the Alps engulfed whole villages, and sea ice increased so much that no open water flowed around Iceland in the year 1695.

But researchers are on guard against their concerns about a new cold snap being misinterpreted.

"[Global warming] skeptics tend to leap forward," said Mike Lockwood, a solar terrestrial physicist at the University of Southampton in the U.K.

He and other researchers are therefore engaged in what they call "preemptive denial" of a solar minimum leading to global cooling.

And apparently you aren't suppose to use the term Global Warming, per the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02enviro.html?_r=1).

Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: May 1, 2009

WASHINGTON — The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.”

The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”

I'm all for environmental stewardship, but many of these environmental groups are stopping useful, and in the end more environmentally friendly, projects from going forward because of what they believe is harm to the environment. Case in point the long delayed proposed Carlsbad Desalinization Plant Project.

[Raptor1]

Weren't there theories of a coming little ice age for years now?

[SteamWake]

:doh:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=151435

[Aramike]

The problem with so-called "global warming" and/or "climate change" is that the modern theories almost completely discount recurring natural phenomenon. Not only that, they TOTALLY discount the fact that we are likely to face NEW, unobserved phenomenon every so often.

There is little doubt that man has changed his environment to better suit him. However, on a planet which has seen 99% of its species fall prey to extinction, who are we to suddenly decide which climate is best? Ultimately, any climate change we cause will either support us or it will not ... nature will decide. To try to pretend that we can maintain the human-friendly habitat our planet is, is silly.

Think about it: should we cut all carbon emissions today, and the Yellowstone calderra erupts, what's the ecological difference?

Throughout history, Earth has supported itself through natural Darwinian life processes. The planet will always simply support life that it can support.

[Skybird]

The public-political-economical dispute pro or contra the term "global warming" is a desperate attempt to hide man's major share of the responsibility for climate change. While possible short-termed effects of of a general warming may indicate a colling. the general trend is beyond doubt. Glaciers are retreating and disaapearing since decades. The oceans become warmer and warmer, and more acid, climate zones shift, from the warm equatorial regions towards the south and north.. Desertification has multiplied in speed. In general, polar ice is weakening, despite regional paradoxical effects. Flora and fauna changes such that these changes can only be explained by a warming trend, not a cooling trend. warmth-preferring species move into regions that were colder before and thus were no habitats before to these species, but now are.

He who has eyes to see, should see. And if he still does not today, although the signs are legion, than the chances are that he prefers to keep his eyes shut, not needing to see what he does not want to see. Economic lobbyism does the rest, with hundreds of millions of dollar being fired in the propaganda war against changing the economy and adapting societies to the changing times.

[Aramike]

The public-political-economical dispute pro or contra the term "global warming" is a desperate attempt to hide man's major share of the responsibility for climate change. There is no doubt that man shares in the responsibility of climate change.

The problem is that the actual change is minute compared to the power of nature, and that it will only serve to spawn differences in the types of life supported - not quite an end to the world. Humans can warm the world all they want ... one volcano of sufficient strength will nullify any effect.

In fact, from a historical perspective (using ice ages and volcanic activity as a basis), it is quite possible that man may be having a balancing effect on the environment. Perhaps we are warming it, and it will help a natural cooling extreme be less dangerous to our culture.